Oscillatory Mechanics in Asthma: Emphasis on Airway Variability and Heterogeneity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spirometry is one of the most widely used tests in the assessment and monitoring of asthma. However, spirometry cannot be performed in very young children and some adult patients, and is poorly sensitive to small airways, which are primarily involved in the pathophysiology of asthma. The forced oscillation technique (FOT) has emerged as a powerful alternative technique that instead characterizes respiratory mechanics during normal breathing with no forced maneuver. In this review we highlight the current state of the art of the FOT and its utility in the assessment of lung function in asthma. First we briefly discuss the clinical features and characteristics of asthma. This is followed by a discussion of the assessment of airway obstruction and airway hyperresponsiveness using spirometry. We then review the basics of FOT and its application in respiratory diseases. FOT data are particularly amenable to modeling as an aide to physiological interpretation, and we review several common approaches. This is followed by an in-depth discussion of the assessment of airway variability and heterogeneity using FOT in asthma. Finally, we speculate on the potential clinical utility of FOT 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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".