Physiologic similarities and differences between asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review examines the physiologic mechanisms responsible for persistent maximum expiratory airflow limitation in nonsmoking patients with acute and chronic moderate to severe persistent asthma in comparison to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. RECENT FINDINGS: The phenomenon of acute but reversible loss of lung elastic recoil during acute asthma is reviewed, although no plausible pathophysiologic explanation has been offered. Nonsmoking adults with stable asthma and persistent maximum expiratory airflow limitation, despite optimal polytherapy, were shown to have unsuspected and unexplained marked loss of lung elastic recoil in the absence of lung computed tomography scored emphysema. This condition resulted in up to 50% reduction in maximum expiratory airflow. Furthermore, these patients remain at high risk for adverse clinical events, including near-fatal asthma. In chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, reduction in maximum expiratory airflow is related to variable extent of loss of lung elastic recoil secondary to emphysema and concurrent intrinsic airway obstruction or obliteration of small airways. There is also an unexplained loss of lung elastic recoil in primary intrinsic small airways disease in the absence of emphysema. SUMMARY: Nonsmoking patients with moderate-severe persistent asthma and patients with smoking-related chronic obstructive pulmonary disease share similar physiologic mechanisms of expiratory airflow limitation, but probably caused by different anatomic abnormalities.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".