MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967157733 · doi:10.3791/50172

Evaluation of Respiratory System Mechanics in Mice using the Forced Oscillation Technique

2013· article· en· W1967157733 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Toby K. McGovern, Annette Robichaud, Liah Fereydoonzad, Thomas F. Schuessler, James G. Martin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Visualized Experiments · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAsthma and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityChristie (Canada)
FundersCanadian Thoracic SocietyMcGill University
KeywordsForced oscillationRespiratory physiologyAirwayOscillation (cell signaling)Computer scienceAirflowRespiratory systemMedicineSimulationPhysicsChemistryMechanical engineeringAnesthesiaEngineeringInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The forced oscillation technique (FOT) is a powerful, integrative and translational tool permitting the experimental assessment of lung function in mice in a comprehensive, detailed, precise and reproducible manner. It provides measurements of respiratory system mechanics through the analysis of pressure and volume signals acquired in reaction to predefined, small amplitude, oscillatory airflow waveforms, which are typically applied at the subject's airway opening. The present protocol details the steps required to adequately execute forced oscillation measurements in mice using a computer-controlled piston ventilator (flexiVent; SCIREQ Inc, Montreal, Qc, Canada). The description is divided into four parts: preparatory steps, mechanical ventilation, lung function measurements, and data analysis. It also includes details of how to assess airway responsiveness to inhaled methacholine in anesthetized mice, a common application of this technique which also extends to other outcomes and various lung pathologies. Measurements obtained in naïve mice as well as from an oxidative-stress driven model of airway damage are presented to illustrate how this tool can contribute to a better characterization and understanding of studied physiological changes or disease models as well as to applications in new research areas.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.376 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations129
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Visualized ExperimentsSame topicAsthma and respiratory diseasesFrench-language works237,207