Bronchial Inflammation and Airway Responses to Deep Inspiration in Asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Deep inspirations provide physiologic protection against airway narrowing in healthy subjects, which is impaired in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Airway inflammation has been suggested to alter airway mechanics during deep inspiration. OBJECTIVES: We tested the hypothesis that the number of bronchial inflammatory cells is related to deep inspiration-induced bronchodilation in asthma and COPD. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study, three modified methacholine challenges were performed in 13 patients with mild, persistent asthma, 12 patients with mild to moderate COPD, and 12 healthy control subjects. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: After a 20-minute period of deep inspiration avoidance, inhalation of methacholine was followed by either one or five deep inspirations, or preceded by five deep inspirations. The response to deep inspiration was measured by forced oscillation technique. Inflammatory cells were counted within the lamina propria and airway smooth muscle area in bronchial biopsies of patients with asthma and COPD. The reduction in expiratory resistance by one and five deep inspirations was significantly less in asthma (mean change+/-SD: -0.5+/-0.8 and -0.9+/-1.0 cm H2O/L/s, respectively) and COPD (+0.2+/-1.1 and +0.4+/-1.0 cm H2O/L/s, respectively) as compared with healthy subjects (-1.5+/-1.3 and -2.0+/-1.2 cm H2O/L/s, respectively; p=0.05 and p=0.001, respectively). In asthma, this was related to an increase in mast cell numbers within the airway smooth muscle area (r=0.73; p=0.03), and in CD4+ lymphocytes in the lamina propria (r=0.61; p=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Inflammation in the airway smooth muscle bundles and submucosa of bronchial biopsies is positively associated with impaired airway mechanics during deep inspiration in asthma, but not in COPD. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT OO279136).
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".