Cellular Response to Cigarette Smoke and Oxidants: Adapting to Survive
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The gaseous and soluble phases of cigarette smoke are sources of oxidants that contribute to the pathogenesis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Chronic oxidative stress of cigarette smoking induces mucus secretion and inhibits cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator function. The increased mucus viscosity renders the airways susceptible to bacterial infections, a hallmark of chronic bronchitis. Furthermore, lungs chronically exposed to the toxic mixture of oxidants in cigarette smoke show signs of endoplasmic reticulum stress, unfolded protein response, altered ceramide metabolism, and apoptosis. Fortunately, the respiratory tract has developed effective adaptive cellular mechanisms to limit oxidant damage. Numerous antioxidant enzymes and glutathione-dependent detoxification systems are increased in healthy smokers. The regulation of the antioxidant response is largely dependent on the nuclear factor erythroid 2-related factor-2 (Nrf2) pathway. However, patients with COPD have defective Nrf2 responses. Novel therapies such as 2-cyano-3,12-dioxooleana-1,9-dien-28-oic acid (CDDO) to correct defective Nrf2-dependent cellular response may hold promise for patients with COPD.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
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".