MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413179766 · doi:10.3389/fphys.2025.1625871

Vagus nerve stimulation as a potential treatment for acute asthmatic bronchoconstriction: a systematic review

2025· review· en· W4413179766 on OpenAlexafffund
Elizabeth Di Flumeri, Francine M. Ducharme, Farbod Niazi, Nathan A. Shlobin, Simon Couillard, Jean‐Paul Praud, Alexander G. Weil, Christian Iorio‐Morin

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Physiology · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVagus Nerve Stimulation Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de SherbrookeUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineMcGill University
FundersCanadian Lung AssociationUniversité de Sherbrooke
KeywordsBronchoconstrictionVagus nerve stimulationMedicineVagus nerveData extractionAsthmaSystematic reviewMeta-analysisInclusion and exclusion criteriaMEDLINEAnesthesiaIntensive care medicineStimulationInternal medicinePathologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: Vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) is a therapeutic option for diseases such as epilepsy and depression. Given that the smooth muscle of the bronchi is innervated by the vagus nerve, VNS could aid in treating pathologies of the respiratory system involving a bronchoconstrictive component. The aim of this review is to evaluate the literature on the potential for VNS to relieve airway bronchoconstriction in asthma. Methods: A systematic review of several databases (PubMed, Embase and Scopus) was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. Studies of individuals (humans and animals) with asthma symptoms were included if they reported respiratory function outcomes. Two authors independently reviewed all papers for selection, methodological assessment, and data extraction. Results: A total of 2072 articles were identified, of which 1,528 unique articles were screened for inclusion. 30 relevant articles underwent full-text review, and six articles (four in humans; two in animals) were included. One human article was subsequently added manually due to a new finding in an updated search. Due to incomplete data reporting, meta-analysis was not possible. In both animal studies, low-voltage VNS improved respiratory function following a histamine or acetylcholine challenge. In human studies (one case report, two prospective interventional cohort studies, one randomized controlled study), VNS, in addition to standard-of-care anti-asthmatic therapy, appears to temporarily improve respiratory function. Conclusion: Limited low-quality evidence suggests low-voltage VNS appears to reduce bronchoconstriction in both animal and human subjects. Given concerns about translatability, the absence of a control group in most studies, and the concomitant use of anti-asthmatic pharmacotherapy, it is not possible to draw conclusions about the true magnitude of VNS's effect on respiratory function and acute asthma progression. Well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCT) are needed to further evaluate the effectiveness of VNS in treating acute asthmatic bronchoconstriction and to better understand its underlying therapeutic mechanisms.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.346 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PhysiologySame topicVagus Nerve Stimulation ResearchFrench-language works237,207