The Contribution of Small Airway Obstruction to the Pathogenesis of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The hypothesis that the small conducting airways were the major site of obstruction to airflow in normal lungs was introduced by Rohrer in 1915 and prevailed until Weibel introduced a quantitative method of studying lung anatomy in 1963. Green repeated Rohrer's calculations using Weibels new data in 1965 and found that the smaller conducting airways offered very little resistance to airflow. This conflict was resolved by seminal experiments conducted by Macklem and Mead in 1967, which confirmed that a small proportion of the total lower airways resistance is attributable to small airways <2 mm in diameter. Shortly thereafter, Hogg, Macklem, and Thurlbeck used this technique to show that small airways become the major site of obstruction in lungs affected by emphysema. These and other observations led Mead to write a seminal editorial in 1970 that postulated the small airways are a silent zone within normal lungs where disease can accumulate over many years without being noticed. This review provides a progress report since the 1970s on methods for detecting chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, the structural nature of small airways' disease, and the cellular and molecular mechanisms that are thought to underlie its pathogenesis.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".