MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990506001 · doi:10.1139/h01-023

Respiratory Muscle Injury: Evidence to Date and Potential Mechanisms

2001· review· en· W1990506001 on OpenAlexaff
W. Darlene Reid, Alison Wallace

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Applied Physiology · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRespiratory systemMedicineExertionMuscle fatigueCardiologyInternal medicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationElectromyography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Respiratory muscle dysfunction associated with ventilatory loading may be partially attributed to respiratory muscle injury. Exertion-induced muscle injury can be defined as structural alterations of the muscle, however, a better understanding of the biochemical, morphologic, and functional correlates of injured respiratory muscles will facilitate discrimination of how injury, fatigue, and weakness contribute to respiratory muscle dysfunction. In addition to the increased loads associated with lung disease, many factors such as poor arterial blood gases, immobilization, sepsis, decreased nutrition, and corticosteroids may increase susceptibility to exertion-induced respiratory muscle injury. Respiratory muscle injury in humans is not well-described, however, more extensive evidence has been shown in animal models of increased ventilatory loading. Potential mechanisms of respiratory muscle injury are mechanical stress, metabolic stress, and inflammation. In order to optimize therapeutic interventions, a better understanding of these mechanisms and the patients that are most susceptible to respiratory muscle injury needs to be determined.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations16
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Applied PhysiologySame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207