Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although there has been a dramatic increase in awareness about the contributions of the work environment to asthma, many aspects of this illness remain to be explored in further detail. This article focuses on issues that need to be better understood. Data are reported that describe newly recognized agents in the workplace that have been shown in a sophisticated manner to induce asthma. In addition, data that further describe the mechanisms of occupational asthma and information regarding the management of occupational asthma are given. Important problems yet to be resolved include whether those who develop occupational asthma from different agents are likely to have different outcomes, whether screening is likely to have a significant effect on the outcome (and, if so, what is the best approach to screening), and identification of a clear definition of the role of immunologic-mediated parameters as they relate to the initiation of asthma attributable to low molecular weight agents and patient outcome. There is little information about "safe" levels of exposure that protect all workers. Data (such as underlying specific immunologic or genetic markers) are lacking that might aid in predicting which workers are likely to be sensitized by low molecular weight agents. This abbreviated list of unresolved issues makes the study of occupational asthma a fertile field for research.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 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 | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".