Presence of variable extrathoracic airflow limitation in patients with a negative methacholine challenge test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose Determine whether variable extrathoracic airflow limitation (VEAL) is observed in patients with negative methacholine challenge tests (MCT). Methods Electronic medical records of patients undergoing MCT at Jesse Brown VA Medical Center between January 2017 and December 2019 were reviewed. Only patients with negative MCT were selected. Pertinent demographic, clinical, and pulmonary function tests (PFT) and MCT data were abstracted from each record. Spirometric flow-volume loops recorded during each test were inspected by one co-author to determine the first inhaled methacholine concentration at which FEF50/FIF50 was either > 1 or further increased if baseline FEF50/FIF50 after nebulized saline (vehicle) already exceeded 1. Student’s t-test was used for statistical analysis. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results One hundred and twenty-seven consecutive patients with normal baseline PFT and negative MCT were identified. Thirteen patients (10.2%) had negative MCT and FEF50/FIF50 > 1 after testing. They were predominately obese (BMI, 31.3 ± 6.6), non-smoking (10), White (8) males (9) aged 51.3 ± 14.1 years (mean ± SD) referred for symptoms suggestive of asthma (n = 7) or for chronic cough (n = 6). Five had obstructive sleep apnea, three gastroesophageal reflux disease, and two chronic rhinosinusitis. FEF50/FIF50 increased significantly from 0.72 ± 0.21 after nebulized saline (vehicle) to 1.21 ± 0.13 after inhaled methacholine (p < 0.001). Median inhaled methacholine concentration eliciting these responses was 1.0 mg/mL (range, 0.25–16 mg/mL). Conclusions VEAL is observed in a subset of patients with a negative MCT. This phenomenon should be recognized and reported to the referring healthcare providers and its clinical significance addressed as indicated.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".