Airway Narrowing Associated with Inhibition of Deep Inspiration during Methacholine Inhalation in Asthmatics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reduced bronchodilatation in response to deep inspiration (DI) has been demonstrated in asthmatics. We have previously shown that inhibition of DI for 10 min or more during methacholine inhalation increases airway narrowing in normals. We tested the hypothesis that inhibition of DIs during methacholine inhalation in asthmatics would not affect the magnitude of airway narrowing. We administered the PC(15) dose of methacholine to eight asthmatics every 5 min for 5 doses and measured spirometry after each dose. On four separate days, subjects received either 2, 3, 4, or 5 doses selected randomly, but DIs were inhibited during the challenge and spirometry was measured only at the start and after the final dose. Geometric mean PC(15) was 1.6 mg/ml. Mean values for FEV(1) (+/- SEM) after Doses 2 through 5 were 84 +/- 4, 78 +/- 6, 79 +/- 5, and 81 +/- 3% of baseline, respectively, when DIs were allowed. During inhibition of DIs, they were 73 +/- 6, 67 +/- 5, 64 +/- 6, and 61 +/- 7% of baseline values. Decreases in FEV(1) after Doses 4 and 5 were significantly greater when DIs were inhibited (p < 0.05). We conclude that in this group of asthmatics, inhibition of DI for 15 min is associated with increased airway narrowing in response to methacholine inhalation, and therefore, DI may be an important factor limiting induced airway narrowing in asthmatics as well as in normal subjects.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".