Bronchodilating effect of deep inspirations in asthma and chronic cough
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The pathophysiologic processes distinguishing classic asthma (CA), cough-variant asthma (CVA), and methacholine (MCh)-induced cough but normal airway sensitivity (COUGH) are inadequately understood and may be a result of differences in the ability to bronchodilate following a deep inspiration (DI). The purpose of this study was to compare the bronchodilating effect of DIs in individuals with CA, CVA, and COUGH using high-dose MCh. Individuals aged 18-65 yr with CA or suspected CVA completed high-dose MCh testing to a maximum change in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) of 50% from baseline (MAX). Impulse oscillometry (IOS) measurements and partial and maximal-flow volume curves (used to calculate a DI index) were recorded at baseline and at each dose of MCh. Body plethysmography was performed at baseline and MAX. Twenty-eight subjects [25 women, 39.8 ± 11.9 yr (means ± SD)] were studied (n = 11 CA, n = 10 CVA, and n = 7 COUGH). At MAX, the percent change in FEV1 was greater in subjects with CA compared with those with CVA (P < 0.001) and COUGH (P < 0.001), and the percent change in forced vital capacity was greater in those with CA than with COUGH (P = 0.017). Subjects with CA and CVA developed dynamic hyperinflation and gas trapping. In subjects with CA and CVA, all IOS parameters were significantly increased from baseline to MAX, except for central respiratory resistance (R20). In individuals with COUGH, total respiratory resistance, R20, and resonant frequency were significantly increased from baseline. At MAX, the DI index was positive in all groups, suggesting preserved bronchodilation (CA, 0.67 ± 0.97; CVA, 0.51 ± 0.73; COUGH, 0.01 ± 0.36; P = 0.211). We conclude that the bronchodilating effect of DIs is preserved in individuals with CA, CVA, and borderline with COUGH; however, hyperinflation and gas trapping are avoided in subjects with COUGH alone.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".