The Effects of Cognitive Stress on Asthma Exacerbations among University Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Many asthmatics complain of worsening respiratory symptoms during periods of stress.This study evaluated the relationship among asthma symptoms, lung physiology, inflammatory parametersand perceived cognitive stress and quality of life in healthy adult students. This relationship was assessedat two time points: a time of normal activity and at a time of cognitive stress during academic examinations. Methods: Subjects attended the University of Alberta Hospital for a screening visit, which included aclinical exam, spirometry, methacholine challenge, allergen skin tests to assess atopy status and MiniInternational Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI). Eligible subjects returned for a low stress visit (LSV) atleast 14 days prior to an exam and a high stress visit (HSV) within 24 hours of an exam. Spirometry, andmethacholine challenge were performed during both LSV and HSV along with the collection of urine (testedfor cortisol), and the administration of 4 questionnaires to assess perceived stress and quality of life. Results: Subjects showed no significant change in psychosocial or quality of life questionnaires betweenLSV and HSV. No significant change was noted in lung function or urine cortisol. There was an unexpectedhigh rate of pre-existing psychiatric comorbidities in this population (based on the MINI screen failure rate).Conclusion: We did not find a significant change in quality of life, psychosocial wellbeing or pulmonaryfunction or inflammation, measured by urine cortisol, during a high stress period. The high rate ofcomorbidities would be important to consider as part of evaluation used in clinical asthma studies in the future.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".