MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978088510 · doi:10.1097/shk.0b013e318193cc2b

MATHEMATICAL MODELING OF POSTHEMORRHAGE INFLAMMATION IN MICE

2009· article· en· W1978088510 on OpenAlexaff
Andrés Torres, Timothy Bentley, John Bartels, Joydeep Sarkar, Derek Barclay, Rajaie Namas, Gregory Constantine, Rubén Zamora, Juan Carlos Puyana, Yoram Vodovotz

Bibliographic record

VenueShock · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEicosanoids and Hypertension Pharmacology
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsInflammationMedicineImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hemorrhagic shock (HS) elicits a global acute inflammatory response, organ dysfunction, and death. We have used mathematical modeling of inflammation and tissue damage/dysfunction to gain insight into this complex response in mice. We sought to increase the fidelity of our mathematical model and to establish a platform for testing predictions of this model. Accordingly, we constructed a computerized, closed-loop system for mouse HS. The intensity, duration, and time to achieve target MAP could all be controlled using a software. Fifty-four male C57/black mice either were untreated or underwent surgical cannulation. The cannulated mice were divided into 8 groups: (a) 1, 2, 3, or 4 h of surgical cannulation alone and b) 1, 2, 3, or 4 h of cannulation + HS (25 mmHg). MAP was sustained by the computer-controlled reinfusion and withdrawal of shed blood within +/-2 mmHg. Plasma was assayed for the cytokines TNF, IL-6, and IL-10 as well as the NO reaction products NO2-/NO3-. The cytokine and NO2-/NO3- data were compared with predictions from a mathematical model of post-hemorrhage inflammation, which was calibrated on different data. To varying degrees, the levels of TNF, IL-6, IL-10, and NO2/NO3 predicted by the mathematical model matched these data closely. In conclusion, we have established a hardware/software platform that allows for highly accurate, reproducible, and mathematically predictable HS in mice.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations49
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueShockSame topicEicosanoids and Hypertension PharmacologyFrench-language works237,207