Response of upper and lower airway inflammation to bronchial challenge with house dust mite in Chinese asthmatics: a pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Allergen nasal challenge can induce increase of eosinophils in sputum, but report about eosinophilic inflammation in upper airway after allergen bronchial challenge in Chinese asthmatics was rare. The article aims to evaluate response of upper and lower airways to house dust mite (HDM) allergen bronchial challenge. Methods: HDM allergen bronchial challenge was carried out in asthmatic patients with allergic rhinitis (AR). Bronchial methacholine challenge and blood test were performed before and at 24 hours after allergen challenge. Nasal lavage and induced sputum for differential cells count and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) measurement were performed before, 7 and 24 hours after allergen challenge. Results: Eighteen asthmatic patients with AR underwent HDM allergen bronchial challenge with no serious adverse events reported. Fifteen patients showed dual asthmatic response (DAR), while 2 patients showed early (EAR) and 1 late asthmatic response (LAR) only. At 24 hours after allergen bronchial challenge testing, average PC20FEV1 to methacholine significantly decreased (1.58 to 0.81 mg/mL, P=0.03), while both FeNO and the percentage of eosinophils in blood and sputum were significantly increased [52.0 (54.0) to 69.0 (56.0) ppb, P=0.01; 4.82% to 6.91%, P<0.001; 20.70% to 27.86%, P=0.03, respectively], but with no significant differences found in the percentage of eosinophils in nasal lavage (39.36% to 38.58%, P=0.89). However, at 7 hours after allergen challenge, the eosinophils in sputum were significant increased to 40.45% (P<0.001), but there was an increase (39.36% to 48.07%) with no statistical difference (P=0.167) found in nasal lavage. Conclusions: HDM allergen bronchial challenge induced different response of airway inflammation in upper and lower airways.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".