Alveolar and Airway Sites of Nitric Oxide Inflammation in Treated Asthma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of this study was to identify airway and alveolar site(s) of inflammation using exhaled nitric oxide (NO) as a marker in treated patients with asthma, including response to oral corticosteroids, and correlate these sites with expiratory airflow limitation. In 53 (24 male) patients with asthma, age 43 +/- 23 years (mean +/- SD) and all on inhaled corticosteroids, post 180 microg aerosolized albuterol, FEV(1) was 74 +/- 23% predicted and FEV(1)/FVC was 68 +/- 11%. Exhaled NO at 100 ml/second was 27 +/- 23 ppb (p < 0.001 compared with normal, 12 +/- 15 ppb). Bronchial NO maximal flux was 2.4 +/- 3.1 nl/second (p < 0.001 compared with normal, 0.85 +/- 0.55). Alveolar NO concentration was 7.0 +/- 7.4 ppb (p = 0.01 compared with the normal value, 3.2 +/- 2.0 ppb). There was no significant correlation between FEV(1) % predicted or lung elastic recoil and NO bronchial flux or alveolar concentration. However, there was a weak but significant correlation between NO bronchial flux and alveolar concentration (Spearman r = 0.50, p < 0.001). In 10 subjects with asthma on inhaled corticosteroids, 5 days of 30 mg prednisone resulted in isolated significant decreases in NO alveolar concentration, from 13 +/- 10 to 4 +/- 4 ppb (p = 0.002). Despite treatment, including inhaled corticosteroids, patients with asthma may have ongoing separate airway and alveolar sites of NO inflammation, the latter responsive to oral corticosteroids.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".