The contribution of airway smooth muscle to airway narrowing and airway hyperresponsiveness in disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR), the exaggerated response to constrictor agonists in asthmatic subjects, is incompletely understood. Changes in either the quantity or properties of airway smooth muscle (ASM) are possible explanations for AHR. Morphometric analyses demonstrate structural changes in asthmatic airways, including subepithelial fibrosis, gland hyperplasia/hypertrophy, neovascularization and an increase in ASM mass. Mathematical modelling of airway narrowing suggests that, of all the changes in structure, the increase in ASM mass is the most probable cause of AHR. An increase in ASM mass in the large airways is more closely associated with a greater likelihood of dying from asthma than increases in ASM mass in other locations within the airway tree. ASM contraction is opposed by the elastic recoil of the lungs and airways, which appears to limit the degree of bronchoconstriction in vivo. The cyclical nature of tidal breathing applies stresses to the airway wall that enhance the bronchodilating influence of the lung tissues on the contracting ASM, in all probability by disrupting cross-bridges. However, the increase in ASM mass in asthma may overcome the limitation resulting from the impedances to ASM shortening imposed by the lung parenchyma and airway wall tissues. Additionally, ASM with the capacity to shorten rapidly may achieve shorter lengths and cause a greater degree of bronchoconstriction when stimulated to contract than slower ASM. Changes in ASM properties are induced by the process of sensitization and allergen-exposure such as enhancement of phospholipase C activity and inositol phosphate turnover, and increases in myosin light chain kinase activity. Whether changes in ASM mass or biochemical/biomechanical properties form the basis for asthma remains to be determined.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".