MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130118443 · doi:10.1155/2012/593784

Airway Smooth Muscle as a Target in Asthma and the Beneficial Effects of Bronchial Thermoplasty

2012· article· en· W2130118443 on OpenAlexaff
Luke J. Janssen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Allergy · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonMcMaster UniversitySt. Joseph's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBronchial thermoplastyAirwayMedicineAsthmaBronchoconstrictionIntensive care medicineImmunologyAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Airflow within the airways is determined directly by the lumenal area of that airway. In this paper, we consider several factors which can reduce airway lumenal area, including thickening and/or active constriction of the airway smooth muscle (ASM). The latter cell type can also contribute in part to inflammation, another feature of asthma, through its ability to take on a synthetic/secretory phenotype. The ASM therefore becomes a strategically important target in the treatment of asthma, given these key contributions to the pathophysiology of that disease. Pharmacological approaches have been developed to elicit relaxation of the ASM, but these are not always effective in all patients, nor do they address the long-term structural changes which impinge on the airway lumen. The recent discovery that thermal energy can be used to ablate smooth muscle has led to the development of a novel physical intervention-bronchial thermoplasty-in the treatment of asthma. Here, we review the evolution of this novel approach, consider some of the possible mechanisms that account for its salutary effects, and pose new questions which may lead to even better therapies for asthma.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.226 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of AllergySame topicAsthma and respiratory diseasesFrench-language works237,207