Airway wall geometry in asthma and nonasthmatic eosinophilic bronchitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Variable airflow obstruction and airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR) are features of asthma, which are absent in nonasthmatic eosinophilic bronchitis (EB). Airway remodelling is characteristic of both conditions suggesting that remodelling and airway dysfunction are disassociated, but whether the airway geometry differs between asthma and nonasthmatic EB is uncertain. METHODS: We assessed airway geometry by computed tomography (CT) imaging in asthma vs EB. A total of 12 subjects with mild-moderate asthma, 14 subjects with refractory asthma, 10 subjects with EB and 11 healthy volunteers were recruited. Subjects had a narrow collimation (0.75 mm) CT scan from the aortic arch to the carina to capture the right upper lobe apical segmental bronchus (RB1). In subjects with asthma and EB, CT scans were performed before and after a 2-week course of oral prednisolone (0.5 mg/kg). RESULTS: Mild-moderate and refractory asthma were associated with RB1 wall thickening in contrast to subjects with nonasthmatic EB who had maintained RB1 patency without wall thickening [mean (SD) % wall area and luminal area mild-t0-moderate asthma 67.7 (7.3)% and 6.6 (2.8) mm(2)/m(2), refractory asthma 67.3 (5.6)% and 6.7 (3.4) mm(2)/m(2), healthy control group 59.7 (6.3)% and 8.7 (3.8) mm(2)/m(2), EB 61.4 (7.8)% and 11.1 (4.6) mm(2)/m(2) respectively; P < 0.05]. Airway wall thickening of non-RB1 airways generation three to six was a feature of asthma only. There was no change in airway geometry of RB1 after prednisolone. Proximal airway wall thickening was associated with AHR in asthma (r = -0.56; P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Maintained airway patency in EB may protect against the development of AHR, whereas airway wall thickening may promote AHR in asthma.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".