Does the Methacholine Test Reproduce Symptoms?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The interpretation of methacholine test results do not usually consider the symptoms for which the subject was referred and those that occur during the test. OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between methacholine test results and symptoms, and to examine variables that may affect this association. METHODS A total of 400 prospectively chosen subjects who underwent methacholine testing for possible asthma were investigated. The subjects answered a short questionnaire regarding the symptoms for which they had been referred and those that were encountered during the methacholine test. RESULTS: The positive predictive value for the reproduction of symptoms during the test compared with symptoms for which subjects had been referred were 84% for dyspnea, 87% for cough, 81% for wheezing and 72% for chest tightness. The positive predictive value among the values obtained by measuring the provocative concentration of methacholine causing a 20% fall (PC20) in forced expiratory volume in 1 s on the one hand, and specific symptoms on the other, varied by up to approximately 50%; negative predictive values were higher. Forty-eight per cent of subjects with a PC20 of 16 mg⁄mL or lower reported that the test had globally reproduced their symptoms. This association was significantly stronger in women, young subjects and those taking inhaled steroids. CONCLUSIONS: The methacholine test generally reproduced the symptoms for which the subjects were referred. The absence of a specific symptom (eg, dyspnea, cough, wheezing or chest tightness), either in daily life or at the time of methacholine testing, was more generally associated with a negative test than the reverse. The global impression that the test had reproduced what the patient had experienced in daily life was significantly associated with a positive test (ie, a PC20 of 16 mg⁄mL or lower), with the association being stronger in young subjects and women.
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 | 0.003 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".