New Considerations About Measuring Airway Hyperresponsiveness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Measuring airway responsiveness to inhaled bronchoconstrictor stimuli, such as methacholine or histamine, has become an important tool in the diagnosis of asthma. This is measured by patients inhaling increasing doses or concentrations of the bronchoconstrictor stimulus until a given level of bronchoconstriction is achieved. Inhaled allergens initiate processes that increase airway inflammation and enhance airway hyperresponsiveness in asthmatic subjects. Studies using inhaled allergen challenges have provided insight into how changes in airway hyperresponsiveness are regulated by induced inflammatory processes. These changes in airway hyperresponsiveness (1-2 doubling doses) have been shown to be of much smaller magnitude than those demonstrated when asthmatics with stable airway hyperresponsiveness are compared to normals (4-8 doubling doses). These allergen-induced changes would be of little relevance in subjects with normal airway responsiveness, because they would not increase the degree of airway responsiveness into the asthmatic range. They are, however, important in asthmatics who already have airway hyperresponsiveness because they are similar to changes associated with worsening asthma control. It is likely that the mechanisms responsible for the changes in airway hyperresponsiveness following experimental allergen exposure are similar to those producing transient worsening of control in asthmatics. Nevertheless, it is unlikely that the mechanisms of the transient allergen-induced airway hyperresponsiveness will explain the underlying mechanisms of the persistent airway hyperresponsiveness in asthmatic patients when compared with normal individuals.
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 | 0.030 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
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".