Nasal Nitric Oxide and the Nasal Cycle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To establish the relationship between nasal patency and the nitric oxide (NO) concentration in the nasal airways. METHODS: Unilateral nasal NO concentration (n = 11) and inhaled nasal NO concentration at oropharynx (n = 9) were measured in healthy adult volunteers. Subjects breathed normally through the nose with a known resistance (ranged from none to total occlusion) placed in one nostril. In a subgroup (n = 7), the unilateral nasal NO concentrations were determined with nasal cavity congestion induced by lateral decubitus. RESULTS: When the added nasal resistance was less than 6 cm H(2)0 per liter per second, the peak NO concentrations in the nose remained below 80 parts per billion (ppb). Thereafter, the higher the resistance, the greater the NO concentration. It was up to 1109.7 ppb when the front nostril was totally occluded. There was no correlation between oropharyngeal NO concentrations and resistance in the front of the nose (r = 0.4). There was a significantly negative correlation between nasal cavity volumes and nasal NO concentrations (r = -0.8, P <.001). CONCLUSIONS: Increases in nasal resistance to levels encountered in the nasal cycle and in recumbency augments the NO concentration within the obstructed side of the nose. Although that within the nose changes with patency, the NO concentration is constant down to the lower airways. The modulation role of the upper airways to the inhaled NO concentration remains unclear.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".