MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410526278 · doi:10.2196/73215

Assessing the Impact of Home Environmental Exposures on Allergic Rhinitis Using Real-Time Air Quality Monitoring and Symptom Assessment: Observational Feasibility Study

2025· article· en· W4410526278 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Aero Cavalier, Anthony I. Dick, Emily Cramer, Kamal Eldeirawi, Jayant M. Pinto, Sharmilee M. Nyenhuis, Victoria S. Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAllergic Rhinitis and Sensitization
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin DiseasesNational Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
KeywordsObservational studyPreprintEnvironmental healthMedicineAir quality indexQuality assessmentGeographyInternal medicineExternal quality assessmentMeteorologyPathologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Rhinitis is the most common sinonasal condition and poses a significant cost burden. Rhinitis symptom control is associated with exposure to environmental triggers (eg, aeroallergens, pollutants, and irritants). While people spend much of their time at home, studies examining the association of rhinitis symptoms with home environmental exposures, especially in low-income, urban, and racial or ethnic minorities, are limited. Frequently, 3 types of surveys are used in ecological momentary assessment (EMA): a survey conducted at a predetermined rate, an event-triggered survey, and a follow-up survey to gauge behavioral changes in response to the event. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to determine the feasibility and usability of daily and triggered EMA paired with an indoor air quality monitor to collect exposure and rhinitis symptom data. METHODS: Participants were recruited from the Allergy and Ear, Nose, and Throat clinics at 2 academic centers. Participants had to have a rhinitis diagnosis with active symptoms, be 18 years of age or older, self-identify as a racial or ethnic minority, live in the city of Chicago, be able to read and speak English, and have a smartphone. Participants received the Awair Omni air quality monitor to measure volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, and humidity. EMA data were collected using a personal smartphone using the PiLR Health app. Participants were sent daily scheduled surveys, random check-in surveys, and air quality event-triggered survey EMA notifications to assess rhinitis symptoms, environmental exposures, and mitigation strategies for 14 days. After the 14-day data collection period, participants completed the acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility survey items. Feasibility metrics captured included recruitment and retention, demographics, rhinitis symptoms, and the usability of the PiLR Health App and Awair Omni. Barriers and challenges were identified and captured by the study staff. Descriptive statistics were performed using Excel (Microsoft Corp). RESULTS: A total of 24 participants were approached, 15 participants consented and 12 participants completed the study. Participants received an average of 62.42 (SD 14.26) total surveys during their study period, and of those surveys, an average of 36.83 (SD 22.18; 59%) surveys were completed. All 12 participants met the threshold for successful home air monitoring (11 days of continuous environmental data assessment). The usability of study components and integration into the overall study was high (usability scale≥68), indicating participants considered each of the devices to be usable. Participant feedback on the study was positive; yet, they did identify areas for improvement including getting air quality data in real time, providing more detailed instructions for device setup, and doing more check-ins. CONCLUSIONS: A real-time assessment of home environmental exposures and subjective rhinitis symptoms was feasible to conduct. This study will support the development of targeted interventions to address disparities in sinonasal disease care and outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.463

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.168
GPT teacher head0.509
Teacher spread0.341 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicAllergic Rhinitis and SensitizationFrench-language works237,207