Human airway smooth muscle is structurally and mechanically similar to that of other species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Airway smooth muscle (ASM) plays a vital role in the exaggerated airway narrowing seen in asthma. However, whether asthmatic ASM is mechanically different from nonasthmatic ASM is unclear. Much of our current understanding about ASM mechanics comes from measurements made in other species. Limited data on human ASM mechanics prevents proper comparisons between healthy and asthmatic tissues, as well as human and animal tissues. In the current study, we sought to define the mechanical properties of healthy human ASM using tissue from intact lungs and compare these properties to measurements in other species. The mechanical properties measured included: maximal stress generation, force-length properties, the ability of the muscle to undergo length adaptation, the ability of the muscle to recover from an oscillatory strain, shortening velocity and maximal shortening. The ultrastructure of the cells was also examined. Healthy human ASM was found to be mechanically and ultrastructurally similar to that of other species. It is capable of undergoing length adaptation and responds to mechanical perturbation like ASM from other species. Force generation, shortening capacity and velocity were all similar to other mammalian ASM. These results suggest that human ASM shares similar contractile mechanisms with other animal species and provides an important dataset for comparisons with animal models of disease and asthmatic ASM.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".