High-frequency oscillation and surfactant treatment in an acid aspiration model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Both exogenous surfactant therapy and high-frequency oscillation (HFO) have been proposed as clinical interventions in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The combination of these 2 interventions has not been studied in a relevant model of ARDS. It was hypothesized that surfactant treatment combined with HFO is superior to either surfactant treatment or HFO alone in a model of ARDS. Adult rats had lung injury induced by instillation of 0.1 mol/L HCl, followed by randomization to one of 4 groups: Conventional mechanical ventilation (CMV) + air (no treatment), CMV + surfactant, HFO + air, and HFO + surfactant. Oxygenation, lung compliance, surfactant, and cytokine concentrations in the lung lavage were analyzed. The results showed superior oxygenation in HFO ventilated animals regardless of surfactant treatment compared with CMV. Nonsurfactant-treated animals ventilated with HFO had a significantly greater proportion of large aggregates, and had greater lung compliance compared with non-surfactant-treated animals ventilated with CMV. Surfactant therapy combined with HFO provided no advantages with respect to these outcomes. These data suggest an advantage of HFO over CMV when exogenous surfactant was not given, and that surfactant treatment combined with HFO was not superior to HFO ventilation alone.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".