Allergen Challenge Testing in Atopic Asthma Pharmaceutical Research: Past, Present, and Future Directions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the years, various allergen inhalation challenge models have been developed to study the pathophysiology and pharmacology of allergen-induced asthma. Each allergen challenge method possesses unique benefits and disadvantages. The classic allergen challenge model is useful for assessing the efficacy of new treatments but does not reflect real-world repeated exposure and excludes approximately 50% of allergic asthmatics (i.e. those who do not exhibit a late asthmatic response). The early response model, while also artificial, is less time-consuming and allows for the generation of dose-response data but does not assess the late response or related sequelae. The repeated low-dose allergen model was developed with the purpose of mimicking natural exposure for induction of airway inflammation and airway hyperresponsiveness. However, this method does not consistently produce airway inflammation and is less practical to perform due to the number of study visits required. The segmental allergen model is the only one to allow direct sampling of airway secretions for airway inflammation studies, but it is highly invasive and requires special training and equipment. Attempts have been made to establish a repeated high-dose allergen model for the assessment of drug effects on symptoms and rescue medication use, but participant safety remains a concern and it is also less practical than the classic method. The most difficult allergen model to perform is the natural exposure method, for which standardisation may not be possible given the number of environmental factors that must be controlled or measured. Modifications to these allergen models could improve their clinical relevance and identify their specific, tailored applications in pharmaceutical research of allergic 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 | 0.030 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".