Residential Exposure to Volatile Organic Compounds and Asthma
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We critically analysed the literature concerning exposure to volatile organic compounds and asthma. Observational studies have consistently found a relation between volatile organic compounds and indicators of asthma, such as symptoms, peak flows, and objectively measured bronchial reactivity. In contrast, interventional studies have generally failed to find a relation between exposure to residential levels of formaldehyde and other volatile organic compounds and asthma. One hypothesis to explain the discrepancy in findings between interventional and observational studies is that the effect size is small requiring relatively large numbers of study subjects, common in observational studies but often not feasible in interventional studies. Another hypothesis is that longer duration of exposure is important, a common circumstance in observational studies where the home environment is the exposure setting. In contrast, duration of exposure in interventional studies is usually of minutes-to-hours in a chamber. Finally, the observed association in observational studies could be confounded by a factor which is a determinant of asthma and is also associated with exposure to volatile organic compounds.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it