MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2404517053 · doi:10.20452/pamw.799

How to diagnose and treat work‑related asthma. Key messages for clinical practice from the American College of Chest Physicians Consensus Statement

2009· review· en· W2404517053 on OpenAlexaff
Susan M. Tarlo, Gary M. Liss, Paul D. Blanc

Bibliographic record

VenuePolskie Archiwum Medycyny Wewnętrznej · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOccupational exposure and asthma
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsthmaMedicineStatement (logic)EtiologyOccupational asthmaWork (physics)Intensive care medicineAsthma managementFamily medicineMEDLINEPhysical therapyPathologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Work-related asthma is common among adult asthmatics, either asthma initially caused by work (occupational asthma) or pre-existing asthma worsened by work factors (work-exacerbated asthma). Appropriate management depends on both correct diagnosis and on recognition of etiology. Following a systematic literature review, the American College of Chest Physicians enpaneled a group of experts that reviewed this material, extended the literature review, and developed a "Consensus Statement on the Diagnosis, and Management of Work-Related Asthma", published in 2008. This article addresses the main practical aspects of that Consensus Statement, including clinical clues to diagnosis of work-related asthma from the medical history, exposure assessment, targeted diagnostic tests, and directed patient management. The range and importance of preventive measures are also addressed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0060.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.011

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.354 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations13
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolskie Archiwum Medycyny WewnętrznejSame topicOccupational exposure and asthmaFrench-language works237,207