Asthma and exercise-induced respiratory symptoms in the athlete
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Asthma and exercise-induced bronchoconstriction (EIB) are common in the athlete and can interfere with sport performances. In this review, we report recent findings on the prevalence, diagnosis and evaluation of these conditions, in addition to specific issues regarding their treatment and antidoping regulations. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent studies confirmed the high prevalence of exercise-induced respiratory symptoms, asthma and EIB, in athletes and showed that these conditions are still underdiagnosed and undertreated. Recent studies highlight the suboptimal use of asthma medication in asthmatic and allergic athletes. Regarding the diagnosis and treatment, questions about the role and criteria for positivity of eucapnic voluntary hyperpnea test were raised. It was confirmed that there is a subgroup of athletes with poor response to asthma medication. Finally, regarding antidoping regulations, new methods and changes in criteria for urinary bronchodilator thresholds were suggested. SUMMARY: Recent publications confirm that exercise-induced respiratory symptoms, asthma and EIB are common in athletes but often unrecognized and not optimally or successfully treated. It was suggested that current criteria for diagnostic bronchoprovocation test responses could be reassessed, as well as antidoping criteria for β2-agonists urinary levels. There is a need for more research on prevention of airways dysfunction in athletes, identification of different asthma phenotypes and the benefits of standard asthma medication in this population.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.004 | 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".