Influence of Weight on Pulmonary Function in the Adult Guinea Pig
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined a group of 63 adult female Hartley strain guinea pigs with weight ranging from 625 to 1,200 g in order to ascertain whether pulmonary function tests including lung volumes, pressure-volume curves, and flow-volume curves were affected by the weight of the animal. We found that there was a weight effect on total lung capacity, vital capacity, residual volume, and the forced expiratory flow between 25 and 75% of total lung capacity, although there was no effect on other parameters of airflow. Flow-volume curves for each animal could be accurately fitted to a mathematical equation, and this equation did not vary with the animals' weight. Pressure-volume curves were affected by animal weight, but could be accurately fitted to a weight-corrected equation. We conclude that when pulmonary function tests are performed on adult guinea pigs, lung volumes may be altered in proportion to the weight of the animal. When pressure-volume or flow-volume curves are being considered, although weight can either be corrected for or has no bearing on the shape of the curve, there is a large between-animal variation, and it may be necessary to use large experimental groups when it is impossible to use the same animal as its own control.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".