MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2232019329 · doi:10.1152/jappl.2001.91.2.938

Historical perspective on airway smooth muscle: the saga of a frustrated cell

2001· review· en· W2232019329 on OpenAlexaff
Chun Y. Seow, Jeffrey J. Fredberg

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Physiology · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAirwayMyosinAirway hyperresponsivenessRespiratory systemBiologySmooth muscleAnatomyNeuroscienceCell biologyMedicineImmunologyEndocrinologyAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite the lack of a clearly defined physiological function, airway smooth muscle receives substantial attention because of its involvement in the pathogenesis of asthma. Recent investigations have turned to the ways in which the muscle is influenced by its dynamic microenvironment. Ordinarily, airway smooth muscle presents little problem, even when maximally activated, because unending mechanical perturbations provided by spontaneous tidal breathing put airway smooth muscle in a perpetual state of "limbo," keeping its contractile machinery off balance and unable to achieve its force-generating potential. The dynamic microenvironment affects airway smooth muscle in at least two ways: by acute changes associated with disruption of myosin binding and by chronic changes associated with plastic restructuring of contractile and cytoskeletal filament organization. Plastic restructuring can occur when dynamic length changes occur between sequential contractile events or within a single contractile event. Impairment of these normal responses of airway smooth muscle to its dynamic environment may be implicated in airway hyperresponsiveness in asthma.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.007
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0040.006
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.275 · 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

Citations89
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied PhysiologySame topicAsthma and respiratory diseasesFrench-language works237,207