Tools used to measure airway remodelling in research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Airway remodelling refers to changes in the airway structure and includes subepithelial fibrosis, increased smooth muscle mass, submucosal gland enlargement, neovascularisation and epithelial alterations. Remodelling is observed in response to chronic injury and is seen not only in asthma but in all airway diseases. Remodelling is associated with more severe airflow obstruction and airway hyperresponsiveness in asthma; however, the clinical significance of this is still a matter of debate. Research should be pursued to better understand the accurate implication of airway remodelling in disease and its therapeutic modulation. To allow research in this field, accurate and standardised methods should be utilised to measure airway alterations in disease and following therapy. The standard detection of structural alterations is through direct analyses of airway tissues obtained during a post mortem, surgically or by flexible bronchoscopy. To avoid invasive techniques, other tools have been developed to indirectly measure remodelling, including induced sputum, bronchoalveolar lavage fluid, blood and urine analyses, physiological and radiological assessments, as well as in vitro techniques. Although of great interest, the exact significance of airway remodelling measurements gained through such indirect techniques is uncertain and further research is needed. Despite their invasive nature, direct methods should be favoured to adequately measure airway remodelling in disease and its modulation by therapy.
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 | 0.024 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".