Lung hyperinflation, perception of bronchoconstriction and airway hyperresponsiveness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the influence of underlying airway inflammation and lung hyperinflation on dyspnea during induced bronchoconstriction in subjects with mild asthma (or asymptomatic airway hyperresponsiveness (AAHR). METHODS: Fourteen mild asthmatic and 14 AAHR subjects had methacholine and 5'-adenosine monophosphate (AMP) challenges, and induced sputum analysis. Changes in inspiratory capacity (IC) and respiratory symptom scores were measured after challenges. Perception of respiratory symptoms was recorded on a modified Borg scale. RESULTS: The mean baseline FEV1, IC, mean provocative concentration of methacholine inducing a 20% decrease in FEV1 (PC20), the mean PC20 AMP and median inflammatory cell counts were similar in both groups. After methacholine, mean (+/-SD) reductions in FEV1 were 24.7+/-10.3% in mild asthma and 35.6+/-19.1% in AAHR (P>0.05); reductions in IC were, respectively, 10+/-12% and 24+/-20% (P>0.05); mean breathlessness scores at PC20 were 1.1 in mild asthma and 0 in AAHR P=0.003), and mean chest tightness scores were 1.2 in mild asthma and 0.8 in AAHR (P>0.05). Maximum chest tightness scores following MC correlated with the maximum decrease in IC in mild asthma (rs=0.75,P=0.009) and with the maximum decrease in FEV1 in AAHR (rs=0.60,P=0.04). After AMP, symptom scores were not significantly correlated with decreases in FEV1 or IC. The number of inflammatory cells was not correlated with decreases in IC after methacholine, AMP or with their PC20s, although inflammation was minimal in both groups. CONCLUSION: Lower breathlessness scores in AAHR compared to mild asthma were not explained by differences in lung hyperinflation nor in airway inflammation.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".