Comparative airway response to high-<i>versus</i>low-molecular weight agents in occupational asthma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Airway responses to occupational agents in sensitised workers may vary clinically and physiologically. The patterns of change in airway responsiveness, type of response and fall in expiratory flows following laboratory exposure to high- or low-molecular weight agents (HMW and LMW agents, respectively) were compared in sensitised workers. Data on workers who underwent specific inhalation challenges with occupational sensitisers (117 exposed to HMW agents and 130 to LMW agents) were collected from their medical charts. Maximum falls in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV(1)) were of similar magnitude for both types of agents. Compared with HMW agents, LMW agents induced more frequently late or dual responses and higher increases in airway responsiveness. After exposure to HMW agents, there was a mean+/-sd reduction in doubling concentrations of methacholine of 0.5+/-1.7 for early responses, compared with 2.8+/-1.2 and 1.4+/-2.0 for late and dual responses, respectively. Isolated early responses were more frequently found in females, smokers, workers with a higher % predicted FEV(1) and higher provocation concentration causing a 20% fall in FEV(1), and in those with longer asthma duration. Workers' characteristics, as well as the type of agent they are sensitised to, may help to predict the type of response after specific inhalation challenge.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".