MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2331492124 · doi:10.2500/ajra.2014.28.4084

Relationship between Sputum Eosinophilia and Sinus Disease in Patients with Eosinophilic Bronchitis

2014· article· en· W2331492124 on OpenAlexaff
Helen Neighbour, Jodi Goodwin, Julie E. Strychowsky, Sadaf Rahman, Rami Abdelshaheed, Parameswaran Nair, Doron D. Sommer

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Rhinology and Allergy · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSinusitis and nasal conditions
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversitySt. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEosinophiliaEosinophilSputumAsthmaImmunologyEosinophilicSinusitisImmunoglobulin ESinus (botany)Internal medicinePathologyAntibodyTuberculosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Sinus disease is commonly seen in patients with asthma, and several studies have been published describing the relationship between sinus disease and the inflammation seen in the sputum of asthmatic subjects. In this article, we expand on this knowledge by studying patients with eosinophilic bronchitis with and without asthma. METHODS: We describe the relationship between the severity of sinus disease determined by the Lund-Mackay score and sputum eosinophilia. Comparisons with blood eosinophil and total immunoglobulin (IgE) measurements are made. RESULTS: We have shown that the severity of sinus disease is positively correlated with sputum eosinophil counts, and the site of sinus disease affected the level of eosinophilia. There was a positive correlation between sputum eosinophils and blood eosinophils, but there was no relationship with blood total IgE levels. CONCLUSIONS: We have confirmed that there is a link between upper and lower airway inflammation and that this is not limited to patients with asthma. The process is associated with systemic inflammation as evidenced by increased blood eosinophils but appears to be independent of IgE.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.341

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.216 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Rhinology and AllergySame topicSinusitis and nasal conditionsFrench-language works237,207