Eosinophil Activation Status and Corticosteroid Responsiveness in Severe Asthma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Since eosinophils are implicated in asthma pathogenesis, we investigated whether these cells were activated in severe asthma. METHODS: Twenty-six asthmatics with different clinical responses to oral corticosteroid (CS), i.e. sensitive [change in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (DeltaFEV(1)) >/= 25% after oral methylprednisolone, 40 mg daily, for 14 days, n = 7], resistant (DeltaFEV(1) </= 15%, n = 9) and dependent (>/= 20 mg oral prednisone daily for acceptable asthma control, n = 10), were studied. RESULTS: Calcium ionophore-induced leukotriene (LT) C(4) release of purified blood eosinophils was similar in the three groups. Cell incubation with granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) enhanced ionophore-induced LTC(4) release, and this effect was higher in CS-sensitive (5-fold) than in CS-resistant subjects (1.7-fold) (p = 0.02). CS treatment decreased blood eosinophil counts in these two groups of subjects (p </= 0.02) and decreased GM-CSF-enhanced LTC(4) release in CS-sensitive asthmatics only (p = 0.04). In contrast, despite a high mean daily dose of oral CS (35 +/- 8 mg), blood counts of eosinophils from CS-dependent subjects were higher (p = 0.03) and GM-CSF enhancement of LTC(4) release was greater (2.8-fold) than in CS-sensitive (2. 1-fold) and CS-resistant (1.7-fold) subjects (p = 0.04). Interestingly, serum from CS-resistant subjects reduced GM-CSF enhancement of LTC(4) release by eosinophils of CS-sensitive asthmatics (p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Eosinophils from CS-dependent asthmatics have an impaired response to CS, whereas serum from CS-resistant subjects contains an inhibitor of eosinophil response to GM-CSF.
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".