Mucus plugs in the airways of asthmatic subjects and smoking status
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mucus plugs have been described in the airways of asthmatic subjects, particularly those with associated with type 2 inflammation and sputum eosinophilia. In the current study we addressed the question of whether smoking, neutrophilic inflammation and airway dimensions affected the prevalence of mucus plugs. METHODS: In a cohort of moderate to severe asthmatics (n = 50), including a group of ex-smokers and current smokers, the prevalence of mucus plugs was quantified using a semi-quantitative score based on thoracic computerized tomography. The relationships between mucus score, sputum inflammatory profile and airway architecture were tested according to patient's smoking status. RESULTS: /FVC. Mucus score was significantly correlated with sputum eosinophils. Among former and active smokers, mucus score was correlated with sputum neutrophils. Mucus score was positively associated with FeNO in non-smoking subjects. The lumen dimensions of the main and lobar bronchi were significantly inversely correlated with mucus score. CONCLUSION: Airway mucus plugs could define an asthma phenotype with altered airway architecture and can occur in asthmatic subjects with either neutrophilic or eosinophilic sputum according to their smoking status.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".