MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145320611 · doi:10.1183/09031936.00053506

Basic mechanisms of development of airway structural changes in asthma: Fig. 1—

2007· review· en· W2145320611 on OpenAlexaff
Elizabeth D. Fixman, Alastair G. Stewart, James G. Martin

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Respiratory Journal · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityChristie (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAirwayHyperplasiaFibrosisInflammationAsthmaMetaplasiaRespiratory epitheliumMuscle hypertrophyExtracellular matrixAirway hyperresponsivenessEpitheliumMedicinePathologyImmunologyCell biologyBiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Airway remodelling is a complex process that involves all of the component tissues of the airway from the epithelium to the adventitia. Each of the changes has the potential to alter airway physiology so as to promote airway narrowing, hyperresponsiveness and inflammation. Structural changes, such as epithelial metaplasia, airway fibrosis and airway smooth muscle hyperplasia, have been successfully modelled in animals. These models are being extensively characterised and are providing valuable insights into mechanisms that are likely to be quite relevant to human asthma. Remodelling is induced by factors synthesised and secreted both by inflammatory cells and by structural cells, the latter frequently under the influence of the former. While information concerning the genesis of inflammation is abundant, the precise factors responsible for cellular hyperplasia, hypertrophy and altered matrix deposition are far from resolved. Elucidation of these factors will no doubt lead to novel therapies designed to prevent or reverse these changes.

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)0.000
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.005

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations131
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Respiratory JournalSame topicAsthma and respiratory diseasesFrench-language works237,207