MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2900975513 · doi:10.1080/02770903.2018.1536145

The leaky lung test: a pilot study using inhaled mannitol to measure airway barrier function in asthma

2018· article· en· W2900975513 on OpenAlexaff
Steve N. Georas, Nicole Ransom, Sara Hillman, Sophia Eliseeva, Janelle Veazey, Timothy Smyth, Kim Le, Jon Meddings

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Asthma · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Institute of Environmental Health SciencesNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNIH Clinical CenterMedical Center, University of Rochester
KeywordsMannitolMedicineAsthmaInhalationAirwayAnesthesiaImmunologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: Airway epithelial barrier dysfunction is emerging as an important feature of asthma pathogenesis, but this is difficult to measure in individual subjects. We aimed to develop a noninvasive way to measure airway permeability in asthma. Methods: Healthy controls and subjects with mild asthma inhaled dry powder mannitol in a dose-escalating manner on two separate occasions, stopping at 155 mg or 315 mg. Serum mannitol levels were measured at baseline and then 30, 90, and 150 min after mannitol inhalation. Mannitol absorption was compared with measurements of airflow obstruction (FEV1) and airway inflammation (FeNO). Results: Serum mannitol levels increased in a time- and dose-dependent manner in both healthy control and subjects with asthma. There were no significant differences in mannitol absorption when comparing healthy controls and subjects with asthma. Mannitol absorption did not correlate with markers of airway obstruction or inflammation. Conclusions: Measuring serum concentrations of mannitol after inhalation challenge can potentially provide insights into airway barrier function in asthma.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.148
Threshold uncertainty score0.521

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations9
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of AsthmaSame topicAsthma and respiratory diseasesFrench-language works237,207