Success and safety of sputum induction in the clinical setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has previously been reported that sputum induction is successful and safe in the clinical research setting. The authors examined the success and safety of sputum induction in routine clinical practice in patients with asthma or chronic airflow limitation of varying severity. Records of 304 patients with asthma and 25 with smoking related chronic airflow limitation were examined retrospectively. All had sputum induced as part of their routine clinical evaluation. When the baseline post salbutamol forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) was > or =70% predicted, the inductions consisted of inhalation of an aerosol of 3%, 4% and 5% saline, each given for 7 min. If the FEV1 was <70%, or there were other reasons for concern, the inductions were initiated with normal saline for shorter periods. Inhalations were discontinued when sputum was obtained or when there was a fall in FEV1 > or =20%. Success was identified by obtaining nonsquamous total and differential cell counts containing macrophages, and safety by the fall in FEV1. The overall success was 93%. The procedure was safe even amongst patients with an FEV1 of <60% and <1 L. Of 77 patients with an FEV1 between 40-59%, 8% fell by > or =20% and of 35 patients with an FEV1 <40%, 6% fell by 20%. Carefully standardized sputum induction can be successful and safe in patients with asthma or chronic airflow limitation in clinical practice, even when moderate or severe airflow limitation is present.
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 | 0.008 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".