Bronchodilatory effect of deep inspiration in freshly isolated sheep lungs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Taking a big breath is known to reverse bronchoconstriction induced by bronchochallenge in healthy subjects; this bronchodilatory effect of deep inspiration (DI) is diminished in asthmatics. The mechanism underlying the DI effect is not clear. Observations from experiments using isolated airway smooth muscle (ASM) preparations and airway segments suggest that straining of ASM due to DI could lead to bronchodilation, possibly due to strain-induced reduction in ASM contractility. However, factors external to the lung cannot be excluded as potential causes for the DI effect. Neural reflex initiated by stretch receptors in the lung are known to inhibit the broncho-motor tone and enhance vasodilatation; the former directly reduces airway resistance, and the latter facilitates removal of contractile agonists through the bronchial circulation. If the DI effect is solely mediated by factors extrinsic to the lung, the DI effect would be absent in isolated, nonperfused lungs. Here we examined the DI effect in freshly isolated, nonperfused sheep lungs. We found that imposition of DI on isolated lungs resulted in significant bronchodilation, that this DI effect was present only after the lungs were challenged with a contractile agonist (acetylcholine or histamine), and that the effect was independent of the difference in lung volume observed pre- and post-DI. We conclude that a significant portion of the bronchodilatory DI effect stems from factors internal to the lung related to the activation of ASM.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".