Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The term 'airway remodeling' reflects changes in the type, quantity, and nature of airway wall components and their organization. The purpose of this review is to look at recent publications on airway remodeling in asthma. RECENT FINDINGS: Animal models and in-vitro studies have confirmed the involvement of airway epithelium, airway smooth muscle (ASM), and extracellular matrix components in asthma-related airway remodeling. They report influences on proliferation of ASM cells, and how their orientation or morphology, in addition to the heterogeneity of ASM mass at different levels of airways could influence their effects. Clinical benefits have been observed following reduction of ASM following bronchial thermoplasty. Asthmatic epithelial cell transcriptome alterations were found to involve metabolism and epigenetics, beyond epithelial mesenchymal trophic unit driven by injury and repair in chronic inflammation. New ways to explore airway remodeling such as imaging or endoscopic techniques have been evaluated. Finally, new data support the role of eosinophils and mast cells in remodeling and show the influence of new asthma drugs on this process. SUMMARY: As recently stated by an American Thoracic Society task force, we need more research on airway remodeling, its determinants and clinical relevance, and on the effects of asthma drugs on its various components.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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".