Exercise-induced Bronchoconstriction Does Not Cause Eosinophilic Airway Inflammation or Airway Hyperresponsiveness in Subjects with Asthma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The cysteinyl leukotrienes (LT) C(4), D(4), and E(4) may partially mediate eosinophilic airway inflammation in patients with asthma. High- intensity exercise by patients with asthma can result in exercise- induced bronchoconstriction, partly due to leukotriene production, but it is still debated whether this causes airway inflammation. Ten subjects completed a randomized, controlled study to examine the effects of exercise-induced bronchoconstriction on airway inflammatory cells. Subjects completed exercise challenge and methacholine challenge in random order separated by 1 wk. Spirometry was measured for 2 h after challenges, and airway responsiveness was measured the day before and 24 h after each challenge. Blood and sputum samples were obtained before, and 2, 4, 7, and 24 h after each challenge for measurement of inflammatory cells. Nine of the subjects inhaled allergen at least 3 wk before or 1 wk after the study. Sputum samples were collected before, 7 h, and 24 h after challenge. The maximum percentage fall in FEV(1) was 21.3 +/- 1.5% after exercise, 29.9 +/- 1.5% after methacholine, and 28.9+/-2.7% after allergen. Exercise had no effect on airway responsiveness or inflammatory cells measured in blood or sputum, unlike allergen inhalation, which resulted in significant airway hyperresponsiveness and increases in sputum eosinophils (p < 0.05). This study demonstrates that exercise-induced bronchoconstriction does not cause eosinophilic airway inflammation in subjects with asthma who develop airway inflammation with the same degree of allergen-induced bronchoconstriction. We conclude that exercise-induced bronchoconstriction does not cause airway inflammation or airway hyperresponsiveness.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".