Airway smooth muscle adapting in dynamic conditions is refractory to the bronchodilator effect of a deep inspiration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Airway smooth muscle (ASM) is continuously strained during breathing at tidal volume. Whether this tidal strain influences the magnitude of the bronchodilator response to a deep inspiration (DI) is not clearly defined. The present in vitro study examines the effect of tidal strain on the bronchodilator effect of DIs. ASM strips from sheep tracheas were mounted in organ baths and then subjected to stretches (30% strain), simulating DIs at varying time intervals. In between simulated DIs, the strips were either held at a fixed length (isometric) or oscillated continuously by 6% (length oscillations) to simulate tidal strain. The contractile state of the strips was also controlled by adding either methacholine or isoproterenol to activate or relax ASM, respectively. Although the time-dependent gain in force caused by methacholine was attenuated by length oscillations, part of the acquired force in the oscillating condition was preserved postsimulated DIs, which was not the case in the isometric condition. Consequently, the bronchodilator effect of simulated DIs (i.e., the decline in force postsimulated versus presimulated DIs) was attenuated in oscillating versus isometric conditions. These findings suggest that an ASM operating in a dynamic environment acquired adaptations that make it refractory to the decline in contractility inflicted by a larger strain simulating a DI.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".