Improvement of exertional dyspnea and breathing pattern of inspiration to expiration after bronchial thermoplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bronchial thermoplasty (BT) is a bronchoscopic treatment that can ameliorate the symptoms of severe asthma. However, little is known about the mechanism by which BT improves exertional dyspnea without significantly changing the resting pulmonary function in asthmatics. To understand the mechanism, cardiopulmonary variables were investigated using cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) in a patient with severe asthma before and after BT. CASE PRESENTATION: A 57-year-old Japanese man visited our hospital for consultation of the intractable asthma, which we managed with three treatment sessions of BT. Comparison of the findings pre-BT and at 1 year after BT demonstrated that (1) the resting tests for respiration showed no improvement in forced expiratory volume in 1 s, but the forced oscillation technique showed decreases in both inhalation and exhalation respiratory resistance values, and (2) the CPET results showed (i) improvement in exertional dyspnea, exercise endurance, and arterial oxygen saturation at the end of exercise; (ii) that the expiratory tidal volume exceeded the inspiratory tidal volume during exercise, which implied that a sufficient exhalation enabled longer inspiratory time and adequate oxygen absorption; and (iii) that an increase in respiratory frequency could be prevented throughout exercise. CONCLUSIONS: This case report described a novel mechanism of BT in improving exertional dyspnea and exercise duration, which was brought about by ventilatory improvements related to the breathing pattern of inspiration to expiration.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".