Antioxidants and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Antioxidants represent an attractive therapeutic avenue for individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Cigarette smoke, the major cause of COPD, contains very high concentrations of gaseous and soluble oxidants that can directly induce cell injury and death. Furthermore, particulate matter in cigarette smoke activates lung macrophages that subsequently attract neutrophils. Both neutrophils and macrophages from the lungs of cigarette smokers continuously release large amounts of superoxide and hydrogen peroxide through the nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate (NADPH) oxidase complex. Once individuals with COPD stop smoking, the neutrophilic inflammation in the airways and lung parenchyma persists, as do the markers of oxidative stress. Several animal models of cigarette smoke-induced injury have provided evidence that various antioxidants may prevent inflammation and morphological changes associated with COPD however, evidence of benefit in patients is less abundant. Although oxidants can inactivate alpha-1 antitrypsin and other protective proteins, damage lung tissue, and increase mucus production, they also are essential for killing pathogens and resolving inflammation. This review will examine the pre-clinical and clinical evidence of a role for antioxidants in the therapy of patients with COPD.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".