SURFACTANT TREATMENT FOR VENTILATION-INDUCED LUNG INJURY IN RATS: EFFECTS ON LUNG COMPLIANCE AND CYTOKINES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to determine if exogenous surfactant therapy could prevent the harmful effects of ventilation at high tidal volumes without positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP). Rats were randomized to either a nontreated control group (8 mL/kg 4 cm H2O PEEP), a nontreated injuriously ventilated group (20 mL/kg 0 cm H2O PEEP) or a treatment group of either 50 mg/kg, 50 mg/kg + 5% surfactant-associated protein A, 100 mg/kg exogenous surfactant followed by injurious ventilation. Isolated lungs from animals in all 5 groups were ventilated in a humidified box at 37 degrees C for 2 hours. Pressure-volume curves and light microscopy showed that surfactant treatment reduced the ventilation-induced lung injury (VILI). Inflammatory cytokines (tumor necrosis factor-alpha [TNFalpha], interleukin [IL]-1beta, and IL-6) in the lavage were significantly higher in injuriously ventilated lungs compared to the control group. However the 3 treatment groups had cytokine concentrations that were similar to the injuriously ventilated group. We conclude that surfactant treatment is beneficial in preventing VILI; however, it does not prevent the release of inrflammatory cytokines during mechanical ventilation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".