MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Small-airway obstruction, dynamic hyperinflation, and gas trapping despite normal airway sensitivity to methacholine in adults with chronic cough

2018· article· en· W2889616982 on OpenAlexaff
Nilita Sood, Scott E. Turcotte, Nastasia V. Wasilewski, Thomas E. Fisher, Taylar Wall, John T. Fisher, M. Diane Lougheed

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Physiology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory and Cough-Related Research
Canadian institutionsKingston Health Sciences CentreQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMethacholineMedicineSpirometryChronic coughAsthmaAnesthesiaAirwayLung volumesVital capacityAirway obstructionInternal medicineRespiratory diseaseCardiologyLungDiffusing capacityLung function

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The clinical relevance of cough during methacholine challenge in individuals with normal airway sensitivity is unknown. We compared responses of individuals with chronic cough who cough during high-dose methacholine bronchoprovocation and have normal versus increased airway sensitivity to healthy controls. Fifteen healthy participants (CONTROL) aged 26 ± 7 yr (mean ± SD) and 32 participants aged 42 ± 14 yr with chronic cough and suspected asthma completed high-dose methacholine challenge testing. Three participants who did not cough and had normal airway sensitivity were excluded. Spirometry and lung volumes were compared at the maximum response (MAX) among 1) ASTHMA [ n = 15, provocative concentration of methacholine causing a 20% fall in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV 1 ) from baseline (PC 20 ) 4.71 ± 1.37 mg/ml], 2) methacholine-induced cough with normal airway sensitivity (COUGH, n = 14, PC 20 41.2 ± 18.7 mg/ml for 3 participants with a measurable PC 20 ), and 3) CONTROL ( n = 15; PC 20 93.4 ± 95.4 mg/ml for 4 participants with a measurable PC 20 ). Esophageal pressure-derived pulmonary mechanics were compared at MAX for the ASTHMA and COUGH groups. From baseline to MAX, FEV 1 and forced expiratory flow between 25% and 75% of forced vital capacity decreased more in ASTHMA (−36.2 ± 3.8 %pr; −47.1 ± 6.9 %pr, respectively) than COUGH (−12.2 ± 3.0 %pr ( P < 0.001); −24.7 ± 6.5 %pr ( P < 0.001), respectively) and CONTROL (−13.7 ± 2.0 %pr ( P < 0.001); −32.8 ± 5.4 %pr ( P < 0.017), respectively). In both ASTHMA and COUGH, inspiratory capacity decreased by 500–800 ml, and functional residual capacity and residual volume increased by ~800 ml. Individuals with COUGH develop dynamic hyperinflation and gas trapping comparable to individuals with ASTHMA despite less bronchoconstriction and smaller reductions in mid-to-late expiratory flows, which leads us to believe that COUGH is a distinct phenotype. NEW & NOTEWORTHY Healthy individuals and individuals with chronic cough who demonstrate normal airway sensitivity but cough during methacholine bronchoprovocation bronchoconstrict less than individuals with mild asthma. However, those who cough and have normal airway sensitivity develop dynamic hyperinflation and gas trapping comparable to individuals with mild asthma. Thus, methacholine-induced cough with normal airway sensitivity may be clinically relevant, related to reversible small airway obstruction and preservation of the bronchodilating and/or bronchoprotective effects of deep inspirations.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.821
Threshold uncertainty score0.534

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations10
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied PhysiologySame topicRespiratory and Cough-Related ResearchFrench-language works237,207