[Expiratory flow limitation detected by negative expiratory pressure in patients with bronchial asthma].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relationship between expiratory flow limitation (EFL) and chronic dyspnea and the effect of bronchodilator on EFL in patients with bronchial asthma. METHODS: Sixty-five patients with bronchial asthma were treated for pre- and post-bronchodilation of 400 microg salbutamol. RESULTS: EFL was detected in 26 (40%) of the 65 bronchial asthma patients, 11 only in supine position and 15 in both sitting and supine positions. There was a significant difference in FEV(1) percentage of the predicted value (FEV(1)% pred) between patients with and without EFL (t = 5.822, P < 0.01); the mean values of FEV(1)% pred in non-EFL group and EFL group was (77 +/- 18)% and (52 +/- 15)% respectively, and the value was lowest in patients who showed EFL both in seated and supine positions [(43 +/- 12)%]; the mean values of FEV(1)% pred in those showing EFL only in sitting position (S-EFL) and both in sitting and supine position (SS-EFL) were (64 +/- 10)% and (43 +/- 12)% respectively (t = 2.283, 6.694 respectively, P < 0.01, < 0.05). Both three-point EFL and five-point EFL were significantly correlated with FEV(1) (r = -0.637, -0.630 respectively, all P < 0.01). There was a significant negative correlation between as proposed by the Canadian Medical Research Council (MRC) dyspnea scale and FEV(1) (r = -0.501, P < 0.01), and a significant positive correlation between dyspnea scale and 3-point EFL and five-point EFL (r = 0.627, 0.636 respectively, all P < 0.01). After salbutamol, of the 17 patients having EFL and < 70% pre FEV(1) at baseline, EFL completely reversed in 9, and changed from SS-EFL to S-EFL in 5, with significant improvements in 3-point and 5-point EFL as compared with before salbutamol (t = 6.769, 6.010 respectively, all P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: EFL as measured by NEP (negative expiratory pressure) technique may be more useful in the evaluation of dyspnea in bronchial asthma patients than routine lung function measurements. The EFL in bronchial asthma patients is reversible after bronchodilator administration.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".