Bibliographic record
Abstract
StreSzczenieDysfunkcja małych dróg oddechowych (DMDO) występuje w każdym stopniu ciężkości astmy i jest szczególnie nasilona w astmie ciężkiej.Obecnie nie dysponujemy pojedynczym badaniem diagnostycznym pozwalającym na ocenę zaburzeń przypływu powietrza w zakresie małych oskrzeli.Przełomowe znaczenie ma wieloośrodkowe badanie ATLANTIS (The Assessment of Small Airways Involvement In Asthma), w którym zaproponowano stworzenie wielowymiarowego modelu oceny DMDO za pomocą oscylometrii impulsowej, testu wypłukiwania azotu metodą oddechów wielokrotnych, spirometrii i pletyzmografii.Udowodniono, że stosując kombinację tych badań, można potwierdzić występowanie DMDO u 91% chorych na astmę.Możliwość oceny nasilenia DMDO może pozwolić na pogłębienie personalizacji leczenia choroby i stosowanie leków w aerozolach superdrobnocząstkowych u chorych z astmą niekontrolowaną z dużym nasileniem DMDO.Słowa kluczowe astma, dysfunkcja małych dróg oddechowych.abStract Small airway dysfunction (SAD) appears in all asthma severities whereas a lot of studies suggest it's association with particularly severe asthma.Currently, no single diagnostic test is available to detect and evaluate SAD.The ATLANTIS (The Assessment of Small Airways Involvement In Asthma) multi-centre study seems to be of great clinical importance.It has been suggested to include multidimensional model of SAD assessment based on impulse oscillometry, spirometry, body plethysmography, multiple breath nitrogen washout and CT scans.Combination of all these methods has been proved to be 91% effective to assess SAD in patients with asthma.The possibility of SAD evaluation might be helpful for personalisation of asthma management and targeted administration of ultra-fine particles aerosols.key wordS asthma, small airways dysfunction.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
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".