MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1606470965 · doi:10.1186/cc2875

Mechanisms of beta-receptor stimulation-induced improvement of acute lung injury and pulmonary edema.

2004· review· en· W1606470965 on OpenAlexafffund
Horacio Groshaus, Sanjay Manocha, Keith R. Walley, James A. Russell

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
FundersMichael Smith Health Research BC
KeywordsMedicinePulmonary edemaLungEdemaPharmacologyDiffuse alveolar damageAnesthesiaInternal medicineAcute respiratory distress

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Acute lung injury (ALI) and the acute respiratory distress syndrome are complex syndromes because both inflammatory and coagulation cascades cause lung injury. Transport of salt and water, repair and remodeling of the lung, apoptosis, and necrosis are additional important mechanisms of injury. Alveolar edema is cleared by active transport of salt and water from the alveoli into the lung interstitium by complex cellular mechanisms. Beta-2 agonists act on the cellular mechanisms of pulmonary edema clearance as well as other pathways relevant to repair in ALI. Numerous studies suggest that the beneficial effects of beta-2 agonists in ALI include at least enhanced fluid clearance from the alveolar space, anti-inflammatory actions, and bronchodilation. The purposes of the present review are to consider the effects of beta agonists on three mechanisms of improvement of lung injury: edema clearance, anti-inflammatory effects, and bronchodilation. This update reviews specifically the evidence on the effects of beta-2 agonists in human ALI and in models of ALI. The available evidence suggests that beta-2 agonists may be efficacious therapy in ALI. Further randomized controlled trials of beta agonists in pulmonary edema and in acute lung injury are necessary.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.771
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.334 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations50
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical CareSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207