Lung structure and function of infants with recurrent wheeze when asymptomatic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Infants with recurrent wheeze have repeated episodes of airways obstruction; however, relatively little is known about the structure and function of their lungs when not symptomatic. The current authors evaluated whether infants with recurrent wheeze have smaller airway lumens or thickened airway walls, as well as decreased airway function. High-resolution computed tomography images 1 mm thick were obtained at three anatomic locations at an elevated lung volume and at functional residual capacity. Forced expiratory flows were also measured in subjects with recurrent wheeze. Airway lumen, wall areas and lung tissue density were not significantly different for recurrent wheeze (n = 17) and control (n = 14) subjects; however, subjects with recurrent wheeze had lower forced expiratory flows than predicted. Similar findings were obtained when subjects were grouped by exposure to tobacco smoke. These findings indicate that infants with recurrent wheeze, as well as exposure to tobacco smoke, have lower airway function when not symptomatic. The lower forced expiratory flows may result from a degree of airway narrowing that could not be resolved with the methodology employed or from other mechanisms, such as more collapsible airways or decreased pulmonary elastic recoil.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".