Lung Hyperinflation and Its Reversibility in Patients with Airway Obstruction of Varying Severity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The natural history of lung hyperinflation in patients with airway obstruction is unknown. In particular, little information exists about the extent of air trapping and its reversibility to bronchodilator therapy in those with mild airway obstruction. We completed a retrospective analysis of data from individuals with airway obstruction who attended our pulmonary function laboratory and had plethysmographic lung volume measurements pre- and post-bronchodilator (salbutamol). COPD was likely the predominant diagnosis but patients with asthma may have been included. We studied 2,265 subjects (61% male), age 65 ± 9 years (mean ± SD) with a post-bronchodilator FEV(1)/FVC <0.70. We examined relationships between indices of airway obstruction and lung hyperinflation, and measured responses to bronchodilation across subgroups stratified by GOLD criteria. In GOLD stage I, vital capacity (VC) and inspiratory capacity (IC) were in the normal range; pre-bronchodilator residual volume (RV), functional residual capacity (FRC) and specific airway resistance were increased to 135%, 119% and 250% of predicted, respectively. For the group as a whole, RV and FRC increased exponentially as FEV(1) decreased, while VC and IC decreased linearly. Regardless of baseline FEV(1), the most consistent improvement following bronchodilation was RV reduction, in terms of magnitude and responder rate. In conclusion, increases (above normal) in airway resistance and plethysmographic lung volumes were found in those with only minor airway obstruction. Indices of lung hyperinflation increased exponentially as airway obstruction worsened. Those with the greatest resting lung hyperinflation showed the largest bronchodilator-induced volume deflation effects. Reduced air trapping was the predominant response to acute bronchodilation across severity subgroups.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".