Integrated Approach to Diagnosis of Associated Occupational Asthma and Rhinitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients with coexisting work-related rhinitis and asthma would benefit from an adequate and simultaneous recognition of both diseases. The present case illustrates the advantages and importance of using an integrated approach to confirm a diagnosis of occupational rhinitis (OR) and occupational asthma (OA). A 38-year-old woman, who worked as an animal laboratory technician since 2004, first noticed the appearance of rhinitis and conjunctivitis symptoms in 2007 when she was exposed to rats. A skin-prick test with rat extract was strongly positive. A specific inhalation challenge with parallel assessment of nasal and bronchial responses was conducted. After 10 min of exposure, she developed rhinitis and conjunctivitis symptoms, her forced expiratory volume in 1 s dropped by 27.5% and her nasal volume, measured by acoustic rhinometry, decreased by 80% from baseline values. After allergen exposure, induced sputum and nasal lavage examination demonstrated an increase in eosinophils (11% and 20%, respectively). A diagnosis of associated allergic OA and OR was confirmed and she was advised to stop working with rats. A systematic and parallel diagnostic approach enables confirmation of a diagnosis of OA and OR in patients complaining of work-related rhinitis and asthma symptoms.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".