Do small airway abnormalities characterize asthma phenotypes? In search of proof
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The role of small airway abnormalities in asthma pathogenesis has been extensively studied and debated for several decades. However, whether or not small airway abnormalities play a relevant role in specific phenotypes of asthmatic patients and contribute to clinical presentation is largely unknown. In the present review, we evaluated available data on the role of small airways in severe asthma, with a further focus on asthma in smokers and asthma in the elderly. These phenotypes are characterized by a poor response to treatment and they can represent a model of greater small airway impairment. In severe asthmatics, small airway involvement has been shown through evidence of both distal inflammation and of increased air trapping. The few available data on asthmatics who smoke, and elderly asthmatics, similarly suggests that small airway abnormalities contribute to the pathogenesis of the disease. In this perspective, there could be a rationale for specifically assessing small airway impairment in these patients and for clinical studies evaluating whether pharmacological approaches targeting the more peripheral airways result in clinical benefits beyond conventional therapy.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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".