The Strain on Airway Smooth Muscle During a Deep Inspiration to Total Lung Capacity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The deep inspiration (DI) maneuver entices a great deal of interest because of its ability to temporarily ease the flow of air into the lungs. This salutary effect of a DI is proposed to be mediated, at least partially, by momentarily increasing the operating length of airway smooth muscle (ASM). Concerningly, this premise is largely derived from a growing body of in vitro studies investigating the effect of stretching ASM by different magnitudes on its contractility. The relevance of these in vitro findings remains uncertain, as the real range of strains ASM undergoes in vivo during a DI is somewhat elusive. In order to understand the regulation of ASM contractility by a DI and to infer on its putative contribution to the bronchodilator effect of a DI, it is imperative that in vitro studies incorporate levels of strains that are physiologically relevant. This review summarizes the methods that may be used in vivo in humans to estimate the strain experienced by ASM during a DI from functional residual capacity (FRC) to total lung capacity (TLC). The strengths and limitations of each method, as well as the potential confounders, are also discussed. A rough estimated range of ASM strains is provided for the purpose of guiding future in vitro studies that aim at quantifying the regulatory effect of DI on ASM contractility. However, it is emphasized that, owing to the many limitations and confounders, more studies will be needed to reach conclusive statements.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".