Directional preference of airway smooth muscle mass increase in human asthmatic airways
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Airway smooth muscle (ASM) orientation and morphology determine the ability of the muscle to constrict the airway. In asthma, ASM mass is increased, but it is unknown whether ASM orientation and morphology are altered as well or whether the remodeling at the source of the mass increase is ongoing. We dissected human airway trees from asthmatic and control lungs. Stained, intact airway sections were imaged in axial projection to show ASM bundle orientation, whereas cross-sectional histological slides were used to assess ASM area, bundle thickness, and ASM bundle-to-basement membrane distance. We also used these slides to assess cell size, proliferation, and apoptosis. We showed that ASM mass increase in cartilaginous airways is primarily the result of an increase of ASM bundle thickness (as measured radially in an airway cross section) and coincides with an increased distance of the ASM bundles to the airway perimeter. ASM orientation was unchanged in all airways. Apoptosis markers and cell size did not show differences between asthmatics and controls. Our findings show that ASM mass increase likely contributes to the airway-constricting capacity of the muscle. Both the increased bundle thickness and increased thickness of the airway wall inwards of the ASM bundles could further enhance this capacity. Turnover of ASM appears to be the same in airways and biopsies, but the lack of correlation between different markers of proliferation casts doubt on the specificity of markers generally used to assess proliferation.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".