Is there an association between coronary atherosclerosis and airway reponsiveness?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Recent data suggested a relationship between carotid artery intima/media thickness and airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR). Our objective was to assess the potential relationship between AHR and coronary atherosclerosis plaque volume as assessed by 3-dimensional intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). METHODS: Thirty-six subjects had a spirometry and methacholine challenge, skin prick tests, blood sampling and induced sputum analysis. RESULTS: We found five (13.9%) patients who presented AHR to methacholine. There was no significant difference between patients with and without AHR, in plaque volume (221 +/- 45 mm3 vs. 189 +/- 13 mm3, P = 0.4), lumen volume (187 +/- 11 mm3 vs. 221 +/- 11 mm3, P = 0.2), or in total vessel volume (377 +/- 20 mm3 vs. 415 +/- 20 mm3, P = 0.5), respectively. No relationship was found between AHR, cell counts and coronary atherosclerotic plaque, lumen or total vessel volumes. There were significantly more eosinophils (1.69 +/- 1.75% vs. 0.21 +/- 0.31%, P = 0.0007) and lymphocyte counts (3.75 +/- 1.59% vs. 2.25 +/- 1.12%, P = 0.03) in patients with AHR compared to patients without. CONCLUSION: In patients with stable coronary artery disease, the incidence of AHR was low and there was no relationship between AHR or airway inflammation and coronary atherosclerosis.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".