Outcome of Occupational Asthma after Removal from Exposure: A Follow‐Up Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite being removed from their workplace, the majority of workers with occupational asthma (OA) remain afflicted with asthma. OBJECTIVES: To assess the time course of clinical, functional and inflammatory parameters in subjects with OA over a four-year period, and whether the airway inflammation observed at the time of the diagnosis predicts the outcome of OA. METHODS: The present study was a four-year, prospective, longitudinal investigation of workers with OA. Spirometry, methacholine challenge and sputum induction were performed at two weeks, and followed up at six months, and one, two, three and four years after the performance of specific inhalation challenges. RESULTS: A total of 24 subjects were enrolled. Overall, clinical and functional characteristics remained stable during the four-year follow-up period. Sputum eosinophil (Eos) counts decreased within two weeks after exposure. Two groups of subjects were identified according to low (less than 2%, Eos-) or high (2% or greater, Eos+) Eos counts after exposure to the offending agent. The Eos+ group decreased their dose of inhaled corticosteroids, had a trend toward an improvement of airway responsiveness as well as a stable forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), whereas the Eos- group showed a decrease in FEV1, without any improvement in their functional parameters. The Eos- group also had an increase in sputum neutrophils after exposure to the occupational agents as well as during the follow-up period. CONCLUSION: There was a rapid decrease in eosinophilic inflammation after removal from exposure. Subjects with a noneosinophilic asthmatic reaction during specific inhalation challenge seemed to have a poorer prognosis than subjects with eosinophilic airway inflammation.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".