MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155854962 · doi:10.1183/09031936.00065411

Mechanical properties of asthmatic airway smooth muscle

2012· article· en· W2155854962 on OpenAlexafffund
Leslie Y. M. Chin, Ynuk Bossé, Christopher D. Pascoe, Tillie‐Louise Hackett, Chun Y. Seow, Peter D. Paré

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Respiratory Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInhalation and Respiratory Drug Delivery
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineAirwayAsthmaAnesthesiaImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Airway smooth muscle (ASM) is the major effector of excessive airway narrowing in asthma. Changes in some of the mechanical properties of ASM could contribute to excessive narrowing and have not been systematically studied in human ASM from nonasthmatic and asthmatic subjects. Human ASM strips (eight asthmatic and six nonasthmatic) were studied at in situ length and force was normalised to maximal force induced by electric field stimulation (EFS). Measurements included: passive and active force versus length before and after length adaptation, the force-velocity relationship, maximal shortening and force recovery after length oscillation. Force was converted to stress by dividing by cross-sectional area of muscle. The only functional differences were that the asthmatic tissue was stiffer at longer lengths (p<0.05) and oscillatory strain reduced isometric force in response to EFS by 19% as opposed to 36% in nonasthmatics (p<0.01). The mechanical properties of human ASM from asthmatic and nonasthmatic subjects are comparable except for increased passive stiffness and attenuated decline in force generation after an oscillatory perturbation. These data may relate to reduced bronchodilation induced by a deep inspiration in asthmatic subjects.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.694
Threshold uncertainty score0.653

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations96
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Respiratory JournalSame topicInhalation and Respiratory Drug DeliveryFrench-language works237,207