Microvesicles in bronchoalveolar lavage as a potential biomarker of COPD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Microvesicles (MVs) released from almost all cells are recognized as cell communication tools. MVs have been investigated in several inflammatory diseases but poorly in biological fluids like bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) of smokers. The purpose of this study was to investigate the presence and source of MVs in BAL of smokers with and without chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) compared with nonsmoking controls. Using flow cytometry in BAL, we detected endothelial and alveolar macrophage (AM)-derived MVs and found a higher number of AM-MVs in the BAL of smokers with COPD than in smokers without COPD and nonsmokers, which correlated with the pack-years ( r = 0.46; P = 0.05) and with the degree of airway obstruction measured by the forced expiratory volume in 1 s percent predicted ( r = −0.56; P = 0.01). Endothelial and alveolar macrophage-derived MVs are present and measurable in human BAL fluid. In response to smoking and to the development of COPD, inflammatory signals in AM-derived MVs can be quantified, and their numbers are related to the pack-years and the decrease in lung function. These results open the opportunity for future investigation of these microvesicles as biomarkers and possible mechanistic guides in 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".