Associations between blood eosinophils and decline in lung function among adults with and without asthma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Eosinophilic inflammation and airway remodelling are characteristic features of asthma, but the association between them is unclear. We assessed associations between blood eosinophils and lung function decline in a population-based cohort of young adults. We used linear mixed models to analyse associations between blood eosinophils and spirometry at 21, 26, 32 and 38 years adjusting for sex, smoking, asthma and spirometry at age 18 years. We further analysed associations between mean eosinophil counts and changes in spirometry from ages 21 to 38 years. Higher eosinophils were associated with lower forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1)/forced vital capacity (FVC) ratios and lower FEV1% predicted values for both pre- and post-bronchodilator spirometry (all p-values ≤0.048). Although eosinophil counts were higher in participants with asthma, the associations between eosinophils and spirometry were similar among participants without asthma or wheeze. Participants with mean eosinophil counts >0.4×109 cells·L−1between 21 and 38 years had greater declines in FEV1/FVC ratios (difference 1.8%, 95% CI 0.7–2.9%; p=0.001) and FEV1values (difference 3.4% pred, 95% CI 1.5–5.4% pred); p=0.001) than those with lower counts. Blood eosinophils are associated with airflow obstruction and enhanced decline in lung function, independently of asthma and smoking. Eosinophilia is a risk factor for airflow obstruction even in those without symptoms.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".