On the terminology for describing the length-force relationship and its changes in airway smooth muscle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The observation that the length-force relationship in airway smooth muscle can be shifted along the length axis by accommodating the muscle at different lengths has stimulated great interest. In light of the recent understanding of the dynamic nature of length-force relationship, many of our concepts regarding smooth muscle mechanical properties, including the notion that the muscle possesses a unique optimal length that correlates to maximal force generation, are likely to be incorrect. To facilitate accurate and efficient communication among scientists interested in the function of airway smooth muscle, a revised and collectively accepted nomenclature describing the adaptive and dynamic nature of the length-force relationship will be invaluable. Setting aside the issue of underlying mechanism, the purpose of this article is to define terminology that will aid investigators in describing observed phenomena. In particular, we recommend that the term "optimal length" (or any other term implying a unique length that correlates with maximal force generation) for airway smooth muscle be avoided. Instead, the in situ length or an arbitrary but clearly defined reference length should be used. We propose the usage of "length adaptation" to describe the phenomenon whereby the length-force curve of a muscle shifts along the length axis due to accommodation of the muscle at different lengths. We also discuss frequently used terms that do not have commonly accepted definitions that should be used cautiously.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".