COPD: Exazerbationsrisiken durch häusliche Aspergillus-Exposition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aspergillus-Arten sind ubiquitär in der Umwelt verbreitet. Für COPD-Patientinnen und -Patienten kann sich der Kontakt zu diesen Schimmelpilzen negativ auswirken. Insbesondere die Sensibilisierung gegenüber Aspergillus-Allergenen ist mit einem schlechteren Krankheitsverlauf verbunden. Zu der Frage, wie verbreitet Aspergillus-Arten im Haushalt sind und welche Konsequenzen diese Exposition für Personen mit COPD hat, führte ein Wissenschaftlerteam eine Studie an zwei klimatisch unterschiedlichen Orten, Singapur und Vancouver (Kanada), durch. Fazit Aspergillus fumigatus und seine Allergene wurden häufig in den Haushalten detektiert. Das traf für die Raum- und Außenluft in Singapur und Vancouver und die untersuchten Oberflächen in Singapur zu. Dabei war die A.-fumigatus -Verbreitung statistisch signifikant mit COPD-Exazerbationsraten assoziiert. Publication History Article published online: 12 May 2025 © 2025. Thieme. All rights reserved. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Oswald-Hesse-Straße 50, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".