The cumulative effect of methacholine on large and small airways when deep inspirations are avoided
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The effect of serial incremental concentrations of methacholine is only slightly cumulative when assessed by spirometry. This limited cumulative effect may be attributed to the bronchodilator effect of deep inspirations that are required between concentrations to measure lung function. Using oscillometry, the response to methacholine can be measured without deep inspirations. Conveniently, oscillometry can also dissociate the contribution of large versus small airways. Herein, oscillometry was used to assess the cumulative effect of methacholine in the absence of deep inspirations on large and small airways. METHODS: Healthy and asthmatic volunteers underwent a multiple-concentration methacholine challenge on visit 1 and a single-concentration challenge on visit 2 using the highest concentration of visit 1. The maximal response was compared between visits to assess the cumulative effect of methacholine. The lung volume was also measured after the final concentration to assess hyperinflation. RESULTS: , reflecting small airway narrowing, were 117 and 270% greater in the multiple- than the single-concentration challenge in healthy (p = 0.006) and asthmatic (p < 0.0001) subjects, respectively. Hyperinflation occurred with both challenges and was greater in the multiple- than the single-concentration challenge in both groups. CONCLUSION: Without deep inspirations, the effect of methacholine is cumulative on small airways but not on large airways. Lung hyperinflation and derecruitment may partially explain these different responses.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".