Peripheral Airway Smooth Muscle Mechanics in Obstructive Airways Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine whether altered airway smooth muscle (ASM) contractility contributes to the pathogenesis of obstructive airways diseases such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma. The passive and active mechanical properties of isolated human peripheral airways were measured in vitro by myography. The amount of ASM was measured by morphometry. Pulmonary function was assessed before surgery by the FEV(1) (%pred) and the FEV(1)/ FVC (%). Fifteen airways were studied from nonobstructed (NOB) patients, and 15 from obstructed (OB, FEV(1)/FVC < 70%) patients (62 +/- 10 yr, mean +/- SD). The maximal isometric force (Fmax), stress (Fmax/ASM), airway diameter at Lmax (Dmax), maximal isotonic shortening (%Lmax), and normalized airway smooth muscle (ASM/Dmax) were determined in all patients. There was a significant correlation between Fmax and FEV(1) (%pred) (r = -0.579, p < 0.004), between Fmax and FEV(1)/FVC (%) (r = -0.720, p < 0.003), and between stress and FEV(1)/FVC (%) (-0.611, p < 0.002). There was no correlation between isotonic shortening and either measure of pulmonary function. A positive correlation was found between force and shortening (r = 0.442, p < 0.05), and stress and shortening (r = 0.538, p < 0.01). Both force and stress were significantly increased (p < 0.05) in OB (Fmax = 0.87 +/- 0.8 g, stress = 76 +/- 47 mN/mm(2)) versus NOB (Fmax = 0.42 +/- 0.18 g, stress = 51 +/- 21 mN/mm(2)) patients, while isotonic shortening was not different between the two groups. ASM and ASM/Dmax were both significantly increased in the OB patient group (p < 0.05). These results suggest that obstructive airways disease is associated with an increase in the ability of the ASM to generate force. (Values represent means +/- SD.)
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".