Alarmin Expression in the Upper and Lower Airways of Asthmatics with Allergic Rhinitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rationale: Allergic inflammation of the upper and lower airways may be manifestations of a single inflammatory process; hence, overexpression of epithelial alarmins should be present in both upper and lower allergic airways. To evaluate this we examined expression of TSLP and IL-33 in allergic asthmatics with comorbid allergic rhinitis. Methods: We collected endobronchial biopsies from allergic asthmatics (AA, n=23) non-asthmatic controls (NA, n=11), and inferior nasal turbinate biopsies from AA with comorbid allergic rhinitis (AR, n=8) and non-AA/non-AR controls (NR, n=5). Biopsies were stained for IL-33 and TSLP and immunopositive cells in epithelium and laminae propria were expressed per mm2 of tissue. Results: In the lower airways of AA there were more TSLP (p=0.021) and IL-33 (p=0.01) immunopositive cells than in the upper airways of AR. In controls TSLP (p=0.0018) but not IL-33 was more highly expressed in the lower airways than in upper airways. In lower airways IL-33 expression was greater in AA versus NA (p=0.005) with no difference in TSLP expression (p=0.31). In upper airways TSLP and IL-33 were expressed at similar levels in AR versus NR (p>0.05). Conclusion: Both TSLP and IL-33 were more highly expressed in lower compared to upper airways of allergic subjects. This may reflect heightened sensitivity to stimuli detected in the lungs, even under baseline conditions. In the lower airways of allergic asthma IL-33 expression was higher than in controls.. However, TSLP is present at similar levels between allergic subjects and controls in both upper and lower airways demonstrating constitutive expression under baseline conditions.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".