Deep Inspiration Avoidance and Airway Response to Methacholine: Influence of Body Mass Index
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of deep inspiration avoidance response to methacholine inhalation in 23 nonobese (body mass index between 18 kg/m2 and 30 kg/m2) and 27 obese (body mass index 30 kg/m2 or greater), nonatopic, nonasthmatic normal subjects. METHODS: Each subject had four methacholine challenges. In tests A and B, the first postmethacholine forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) was measured at 30 s and 3 min postinhalation, respectively; tests C and D were single-dose tests (using the final dose of test B), with the first postmethacholine FEV1 being obtained at 3 min, without (test C) or with (test D) 20 min of deep inspiration avoidance before inhalation. RESULTS: The mean provocative concentrations inducing a 20% fall in FEV1 on tests A and B were 80.6 mg/mL and 28.5 mg/mL (P<0.0001) in nonobese subjects, respectively, and 56.3 mg/mL and 21.5 mg/mL (P<0.0001) in obese subjects, respectively. No significant differences were observed in test A or B between control and obese subjects. Mean falls in FEV1 for tests C and D were 20.3% and 40.0% (P=0.0003) in nonobese subjects, respectively, and 18.5% and 23.6% (P>0.05) in obese subjects, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: As previously observed in patients with asthma, the present study found that nonasthmatic obese subjects had no increase in the fall in FEV1 after deep inspiration avoidance before methacholine, whereas nonobese subjects did, suggesting that obesity alters airway function. No significant changes were found between groups for symptom perception.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".