An Increase in Bronchial Responsiveness Is Associated with Continuing or Restarting Smoking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Bronchial responsiveness (BHR) has been found to be associated with smoking, atopy, and lower lung function in cross-sectional studies, but there is little information on determinants of change in adults. OBJECTIVES: To analyze change in bronchial responsiveness in an international longitudinal community study. METHODS: The study was performed in 3,993 participants in the European Community Respiratory Health Survey who had bronchial responsiveness measured in 1991-1993, when aged 20 to 44 yr, and in 1998-2002. MEASUREMENTS: Bronchial responsiveness was assessed by methacholine challenge. Serum samples were tested for total IgE, and for specific IgE to four common allergens. Smoking information was obtained from detailed administered questionnaires. Change in bronchial responsiveness was analyzed by change in IgE sensitization, smoking, and lung function, with tests of interaction terms with age and sex. MAIN RESULTS: Continuing and restarting smokers had increasing bronchial responsiveness, approximately equivalent to a mean reduction in PD20 of 0.68 and 0.75 doubling doses, respectively, over 10 yr, in addition to a small increase explained by decline in FEV1. No other risk factor for change in bronchial responsiveness was identified. CONCLUSIONS: Smoking is a risk factor for increasing bronchial responsiveness over and above the effect of decreasing lung function. Neither baseline IgE sensitization nor change in sensitization was shown to be a risk factor for increasing BHR, the latter possibly due to little overall increase or decrease in sensitization.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".