Airway diameter at different transpulmonary pressures in ex vivo sheep lungs: implications for deep inspiration-induced bronchodilation and bronchoprotection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deep inspiration (DI)-induced bronchodilation is the first line of defense against bronchoconstriction in healthy subjects. A hallmark of asthma is the lack of this beneficial effect of DI. The mechanism underlying the bronchodilatory effect of DI is not clear. Understanding the mechanism will help us unravel the mystery of asthma pathophysiology. It has been postulated that straining airway smooth muscle (ASM) during a DI could lead to bronchodilation and bronchoprotection. The hypothesis is currently under debate, and a central question is whether ASM is sufficiently stretched during a DI for its contractility to be compromised. Besides bronchoconstriction, another contributor to lung resistance is airway heterogeneity. The present study examines changes in airway diameter and heterogeneity at different lung volumes. Freshly explanted sheep lungs were used in plethysmographic measurements of lung resistance and elastance at different lung volumes, whereas the airway dimensions were measured by computed tomography (CT). The change in airway diameter informed by CT measurements was applied to isolated airway ring preparations to determine the strain-induced loss of ASM contractility. We found that changing the transpulmonary pressure from 5 to 30 cmH2O led to a 51% increase in lung volume, accompanied by a 46% increase in the airway diameter with no change in airway heterogeneity. When comparable airway strains measured in the whole lung were applied to isolated airway rings in either relaxed or contracted state, a significant loss of ASM contractility was observed, suggesting that DI-induced bronchodilation and bronchoprotection can result from strain-induced loss of ASM contractility.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".