Understanding the Biological Differences in Susceptibility to Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease between Men and Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a worldwide epidemic of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in women. Some large epidemiologic studies suggest that female smokers may have increased susceptibility to COPD. The biological mechanisms to explain these observations are far from certain. However, the susceptibility to the effects of cigarette smoke in women could be due to a greater deposition of toxic substances in the lung, impaired clearance of the toxins that are deposited, and/or an exaggerated biologic response to these toxins. The latter effect could be due to an increased ability to convert certain xenobiotics to more toxic metabolites or to a decreased ability to conjugate and excrete metabolites of these toxins. Female hormones, in particular estrogen, can up-regulate certain cytochrome P450 enzymes without altering detoxifying enzymes, leading to a disturbance in the balance between metabolism and conjugation. This article reviews this and other potential mechanisms that may confer increased susceptibility of COPD to female smokers.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".