The underlying physiological mechanisms whereby anticholinergics alleviate asthma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The mechanisms whereby anticholinergics improve asthma outcomes, such as lung function, symptoms, and rate of exacerbation, can be numerous. The most obvious is by affecting the contraction of airway smooth muscle (ASM). The acetylcholine released from the cholinergic nerves is the most important bronchoconstrictor that sets the baseline degree of contractile activation of ASM in healthy individuals. Although the degree of ASM's contractile activation can also be fine-tuned by a plethora of other bronchoconstrictors and bronchodilators in asthma, blocking the ceaseless effect of acetylcholine on ASM by anticholinergics reduces, at any given moment, the overall degree of contractile activation. Because the relationships that exist between the degree of contractile activation, ASM force, ASM shortening, airway narrowing, airflow resistance, and respiratory resistance are not linear, small decreases in the contractile activation of ASM can be greatly amplified and thus translate into important benefits to a patient's well-being. Plus, many inflammatory and remodeling features that are often found in asthmatic lungs synergize with the contractile activation of ASM to increase respiratory resistance. This review recalls that the proven effectiveness of anticholinergics in the treatment of asthma could be merely attributed to a small reduction in the contractile 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".