Direct bronchoprovocation test methods: history 1945–2018
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Bronchoprovocation inhalation challenge tests with direct acting stimuli (e.g. methacholine) are widely used clinically to aid in the diagnosis of asthma.Areas covered: The history of direct challenges with histamine and muscarinic agonists is reviewed. This began with parenteral administration of stimuli with responses monitored clinically and by VC, progressing to inhalation dose-response challenges monitored by FEV1 and FEV1/VC ratio, both (the challenge method and the technology to measure FEV1) developed by Robert Tiffeneau in the mid-1940s. Careful standardization of methods has become appreciated albeit after-the-fact. Recent guidelines recommend standardizing the methacholine PD20 at 400 μg above which a methacholine challenge is considered negative.Conclusions: The methacholine inhalation test is highly sensitive for a diagnosis of current asthma when symptoms under evaluation are clinically current and when methacholine is inhaled without deep inhalations. Under these circumstances, a methacholine PD20 > 400 μg excludes current asthma with reasonable certainty. PD20 values >25 μg and ≤400 μg will have a variable specificity and positive predictive value for asthma which increases the lower the PD20 and the higher the pre-test probability for a diagnosis of asthma. A PD20 ≤25 μg has high specificity and low sensitivity for asthma.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.007 |
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".