Airways dilate to simulated inspiratory but not expiratory manoeuvres
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a healthy human, deep inspirations produce bronchodilation of contracted airways, which probably occurs due to the transient distension of the airway smooth muscle (ASM). We hypothesised that deep expiratory manoeuvres also produce bronchodilation due to transient airway wall and ASM compression. We used porcine bronchial segments to assess the effects of deep inspirations, and maximal and partial expiration (submaximal) on airway calibre. Respiratory manoeuvres were simulated by varying transmural pressure using a hydrostatic pressure column: deep inspiration 5 to 30 cmH(2)O, maximal expiration 30 to -15 cmH(2)O, partial expiration 10 to -15 cmH(2)O; amidst a background of tidal oscillations, 5 to 10 cmH(2)O at 0.25 Hz. Changes in luminal cross-sectional area in carbachol-contracted airways were measured using video endoscopy. Deep inspirations produce an immediate bronchodilation (∼40-60%, p=0.0076) that lasts for up to 1 min (p=0.0479). In comparison, after maximal expiration there was no immediate change in airway calibre; however, a delayed bronchodilatory response was observed from 4 s after the manoeuvre (p=0.0059) and persisted for up to 3 min (p=0.0182). Partial expiration had little or no effect or airway calibre. The results observed demonstrate that the airway wall dilates to deep inspiration manoeuvres but is unresponsive to deep expiratory manoeuvres.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".