[Sensitization to Aspergillus fumigatus and functional outcome of asthma].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Despite a high prevalence in the asthmatic population, sensitization to Aspergillus has not benefited from the same research interest as the other mould species. This study aims at investigating the role of the presence or the absence of Aspergillus sensitization in the deterioration of airway caliber in asthmatics over a five-year follow-up. MATERIAL AND METHODS: One hundred and thirty-three asthmatic subjects aged 18 to 40 years were separated into two groups: those sensitized (cases) and those not sensitized (controls) to Aspergillus were matched according to the following criteria: age, gender and FEV1 (% pred). Clinical, functional, allergic and therapeutic parameters were studied. RESULTS: The FEV1 slope was less pronounced in the group sensitized to Aspergillus (-17 mL/year) in comparison to the controls (27 mL/year). There was also a less noticeable slope of forced vital capacity in the sensitized subjects (-25 mL/year) as compared to the controls (28 mL/year). All of these differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: We did not find any increase in the decline in FEV1 or FVC associated with sensitization to Aspergillus.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".