Reduced Baseline Airway Caliber Relates to Larger Airway Sensitivity to Rostral Fluid Shift in Asthma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: We have previously shown that when the asthmatics go supine, fluid shifts out of the legs, accumulates in the thorax, and exacerbates lower airway narrowing. In the retrospective analysis of our previous work presented here, we test the hypothesis that the sensitivity of this process relates inversely to baseline caliber of the lower airways. Methods: Eighteen healthy (6 women) and 16 asthmatic subjects (9 women) sat for 30 min, and then lay supine for 30 min. While supine, lower body positive pressure (LBPP, 40 mm Hg) was applied to displace fluid from the legs similar in amount to the overnight fluid shift. Respiratory resistance and reactance at 5 Hz (R5 and X5) and leg and thoracic fluid volumes (LFV and TFV) were measured at the beginning and end of the supine period. Results: With LBPP, healthy and asthmatic subjects had similar changes in the LFV and TFV (p=0.3 and 0.1 respectively). Sensitivity to fluid shift, defined by ∆R5/∆TFV, was larger in the asthmatics than in the healthy subjects (p=0.0001), and correlated with baseline R5 in the supine position in the asthmatics (ρ=0.7, p=0.003). No such association was observed in the healthy subjects (p=0.6). In the asthmatics, women showed a greater reduction in X5 than men with LBPP (p=0.009). Conclusions: Smaller baseline airway caliber, as assessed by larger R5, was associated with increased sensitivity to fluid shift in the supine position. We conclude that asthmatics with narrower small airways such as obese asthma patients, women with asthma, and those with severe asthma may be more sensitive to the effects fluid shift while supine as during sleep.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".