Radiofrequency ablation of airway smooth muscle for sustained treatment of asthma: preliminary investigations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bronchial thermoplasty is a procedure now being tested in humans for the treatment of asthma. Current studies focusing on safety are encouraging. The procedure, which causes extensive ablation of airway smooth muscle (ASM), is well tolerated, and there is a sustained reduction in airway responsiveness to methacholine. Two assumptions underlie the development of this procedure: 1) ASM is a vestigial tissue; and 2) that treatment directed at ASM alone will provide sustained symptomatic and physiological improvement in asthmatic humans. Even if this procedure is efficacious, it must be safe in the long-term. Current studies in animals and humans suggest that this is very likely to be the case. While bronchial thermoplasty may have a broad application, especially for patients who wish for a permanent amelioration of their symptoms or have difficulty adhering to medical regimens, the compelling use of this procedure is for patients who are inadequately controlled on current drug therapy or who cannot adhere to therapeutic regimens. The application of this procedure for the treatment of asthma is currently being considered by regulatory agencies, and study centres are currently disseminated throughout North America and Europe. Within the next 1-2 yrs, a profile of the potential role of this therapy in human asthma should be developed fully.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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".