Determinants of peripheral airway function in adults with and without asthma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Peripheral airway involvement in asthma remains poorly understood. We investigated impulse oscillometry (IOS) measures of peripheral airway function in a population-based birth cohort. METHODS: Pre- and post-bronchodilator spirometry and IOS measures of respiratory resistance and reactance were measured in 915 participants at age 38 years. RESULTS: Current asthma was associated with impairments in both spirometry and IOS parameters. These impairments were greater in men and in those with childhood persistent asthma. Spirometry and IOS values for those whose asthma was in remission were not different to non-asthmatic participants. There were significant changes in IOS in both asthmatic and non-asthmatic participants after bronchodilator, but between-group differences persisted. Higher BMIs were associated with impairments in IOS but not spirometry. Cumulative tobacco use was associated with spirometric airflow obstruction in both sexes, whereas cannabis use was associated with impairments in IOS in women. Despite higher lifetime exposure, there were few associations between cannabis and IOS in men. CONCLUSION: Asthma is associated with abnormalities in IOS measures of peripheral airway dysfunction. This association is stronger in men and in those with asthma persisting since childhood. Tobacco and cannabis use are associated with different patterns of spirometry and IOS abnormalities and may affect the bronchial tree at different airway generations with differences in susceptibility between sexes.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".