MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Repeated airway constrictions in mice do not alter respiratory function

2018· article· en· W2788413770 on OpenAlexafffund
Samuel Mailhot-Larouche, Louis Deschênes, Morgan Gazzola, Katherine Lortie, Cyndi Henry, Bindi S. Brook, Mathieu C. Morissette, Ynuk Bossé

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Physiology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGovernment of Canada
KeywordsMethacholineBronchoconstrictionMedicineRespiratory systemAirway resistanceAsthmaRespiratory physiologyAirwayLungConstrictionRespiratory tractInflammationBronchusPathologyRespiratory diseaseInternal medicineAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is suggested that the frequent strain the airways undergo in asthma because of repeated airway smooth muscle (ASM)-mediated constrictions contributes to airway wall remodeling. However, the effects of repeated constrictions on airway remodeling, as well as the ensuing impact of this presumptive remodeling on respiratory mechanics, have never been investigated in subjects without asthma. In this study, we set out to determine whether repeated constrictions lead to features that are reminiscent of asthma in mice without asthma. BALB/c mice were subjected to a 30-min constriction elicited by aerosolized methacholine every other day over 6 wk. Forty-eight hours after the last constriction, the mechanics of the respiratory system was evaluated at baseline and in response to incremental doses of nebulized methacholine with the flexiVent. The whole-lung lavages, the tracheas, and the lungs were also collected to evaluate inflammation, the contractile capacity of ASM, and the structural components of the airway wall, respectively. The resistance and the compliance of the respiratory system, as well as the Newtonian resistance and the resistive and elastic properties of the lung tissue, were not affected by repeated constrictions, both at baseline and in response to methacholine. All the other examined features also remained unaltered, except the number of goblet cells in the epithelium and the number of macrophages in the whole-lung lavages, which both increased with repeated constrictions. This study demonstrates that, despite causing goblet cell hyperplasia and a mild macrophagic inflammation, repeated constrictions with methacholine do not lead to structural changes that adversely impact the physiology. NEW & NOTEWORTHY Repeated airway constrictions led to signs of remodeling that are typically observed in asthma, which neither altered respiratory mechanics nor the contractile capacity of airway smooth muscle. These findings shed light on a debate between those claiming that constrictions induce remodeling and those convinced that methacholine challenges are harmless. Insofar as our results with mice relate to humans, the findings indicate that repeated challenges with methacholine can be performed safely.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.255 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied PhysiologySame topicAsthma and respiratory diseasesFrench-language works237,207