Methacholine challenge test: Comparison of tidal breathing and dosimeter methods in children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Methacholine Challenge Test (MCT) is used to confirm, assess the severity and/or rule out asthma. Two MCT methods are described as equivalent by the American Thoracic Society (ATS), the tidal breathing and the dosimeter methods. However, the majority of adult studies suggest that individuals with asthma do not react at the same PC20 between the two methods. Additionally, the nebulizers used are no longer available and studies suggest current nebulizers are not equivalent to these. Our study investigates the difference in positive MCT tests between three methods in a pediatric population. Methods A retrospective, chart review of all MCT performed with spirometry at the Montreal Children's Hospital from January 2006 to March 2016. A comparison of the percentage positive MCT tests with three methods, tidal breathing, APS dosimeter and dose adjusted DA‐dosimeter, was performed at different cutoff points up to 8 mg/mL. Results A total of 747 subjects performed the tidal breathing method, 920 subjects the APS dosimeter method, and 200 subjects the DA‐dosimeter method. At a PC20 cutoff ≤4 mg/mL, the percentage positive MCT was significantly higher using the tidal breathing method (76.3%) compared to the APS dosimeter (45.1%) and DA‐dosimeter (65%) methods (P < 0.0001). Conclusion The choice of nebulizer and technique significantly impacts the rate of positivity when using MCT to diagnose and assess asthma. Lack of direct comparison of techniques within the same individuals and clinical assessment should be addressed in future studies to standardize MCT methodology in children.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".