The effect of deep inhalation on mannitol responsiveness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mannitol inhalation testing is specific for asthmatics with eosinophilic airway inflammation, a factor that has been negatively correlated with the development of deep inhalation bronchoprotection. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of deep inhalations on responsiveness to inhaled mannitol in correlation with the degree of airway inflammation. METHODS: Twenty participants with stable asthma completed this randomized, crossover study. A screening visit assessed responsiveness to methacholine and airway inflammation through fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) measures and sputum induction. Participants next completed two mannitol challenges, one with deep inhalations (standard method) and one with inhalations to half of total lung capacity, and two methacholine challenges, one with tidal breathing (standard method) and one with deep inhalations. Only the inhalation technique for dose administration differed between repeat mannitol or methacholine challenges. RESULTS: Deep inhalations did not significantly influence the provocative dose of mannitol causing a 15% fall in forced expiratory volume in 1 second ((P = .73; n = 7) or the mannitol dose-response slope (P = .26; n = 20). Deep inhalations produced significant bronchoprotection against methacholine (P = .03; n = 20). FeNO levels were significantly correlated to sputum eosinophilia (P = .02; n = 15), responsiveness to deep inhalation methacholine (P = .005; n = 20), the dose-response slopes from deep inhalation mannitol (P = .01; n = 20), and the dose-response slope from non-deep inhalation mannitol (P = .005; n = 20). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Deep inhalations did not produce significant bronchoprotection against inhaled mannitol. This result is in agreement with past findings linking airway inflammation with loss of deep inhalation bronchoprotection. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was prospectively registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03505489).
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".