Evaluation of variations in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid in horses with recurrent airway obstruction
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine variations in cytologic counts of bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) fluid attributable to month of collection, first and second aliquots, and left and right lung sites in horses with recurrent airway obstruction (RAO). ANIMALS: 5 horses with RAO and 5 healthy horses without respiratory tract disease. PROCEDURES: Horses were housed in a stable for 5 months prior to and throughout the study. Bronchoalveolar lavage fluid was collected from the right and left lung of each horse 3 times at monthly intervals (February, March, and April). Each BAL fluid collection was performed by use of 2 incremental instillations of 250 mL of isotonic saline (0.9% NaCl) solution in the same bronchial site. Analysis of BAL fluid included volume of BAL fluid recovered, a CBC, and differential cytologic counts. RESULTS: Volume of BAL fluid recovered and cytologic counts did not differ in horses with RAO across time or between right and left lungs, except for the number of mast cells. Horses with RAO had significantly lower volumes of BAL fluid recovered, significantly lower percentages of macrophages and lymphocytes, and significantly higher percentages of neutrophils than did healthy horses. Despite individual variation, all horses with RAO had > 25% neutrophils throughout the study period. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Despite variation among horses, BAL fluid cytologic counts were repeatable over short and long periods and samples can be used for longitudinal studies as a diagnostic tool of pulmonary inflammation in horses with RAO.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 it