Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The term severe asthma with fungal sensitization (SAFS) has been coined due to the non-negligible role of fungal sensitization in the development of asthma. These patients typically exhibit poorer lung function, worse clinical prognosis, and a significantly elevated risk of life-threatening asthma exacerbations. Methods We conducted electronic searches in three databases as of October 31, 2024. Two evaluators independently screened titles and abstracts to identify studies for full-text review. For studies meeting inclusion and exclusion criteria, the investigators used the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) to evaluate the quality of cross-sectional studies and a case–control study, respectively, followed by data extraction from included studies. Results Among the 10 fungal genera examined, sensitization to Aspergillus , Penicillium , and Cladosporium spp. was significantly associated with an increased risk of severe asthma, with pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of 2.36 (1.29–4.31), 1.75 (1.02–3.03), and 2.63 (1.76–3.92), respectively. Within the Aspergillus spp., Aspergillus fumigatus -specific sensitization demonstrated a stronger association with severe asthma (OR = 2.98, 95% CI: 1.32–6.75). Subgroup analyses further revealed that Aspergillus ( A. fumigatus ) sensitization was more strongly linked to severe asthma risk in younger and male populations: ORs with 95% CIs were 2.55 (1.35–4.83) in the ≥40 years subgroup, 3.04 (1.01–9.12) in the <40 years subgroup, and 2.77 (1.16–6.62) in the female-majority subgroup. Conclusion In this study, we quantified the risk of sensitization to distinct fungal genera/species, aiming to provide a scientific rationale for screening high-risk fungal sensitization, early detection of severe asthma risk, and personalized health management for patients. Systematic review registration https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/ , identifier [CRD42024620737].
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 | 0.006 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".