Positive end-expiratory pressure above lower inflection point minimizes influx of activated neutrophils into lung*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of low vs. high tidal volume (Vt) with three positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) strategies on activated neutrophil influx into the lung. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized controlled animal study. SETTING: Animal laboratory in a university hospital. SUBJECTS: Newborn piglets. INTERVENTIONS: Surfactant-depleted piglets were randomized in littermate pairs; to PEEP of either 0 (zero end-expiratory pressure [ZEEP]; n = 6), 8 cm H2O (PEEP 8; n = 5), or 1 cm H2O above the lower inflection point (LIP) (PEEP>LIP; n = 6). Within each pair piglets were randomized to a low VT (5-7 mL/kg) or high VT strategy (17-19 mL/kg). After 4 hrs of mechanical ventilation, 18-fluorodeoxyglucose (18FDG) was injected and positron emission tomography scanning was performed. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: VT and PEEP changes on influx constants of 18FDG were assessed by analysis of variance. A within-litter comparison of Vt was nonsignificant (p = .50). A between-litter comparison, ordered in linear trend rank, from ZEEP, to PEEP 8, to PEEP>LIP, showed a strong effect of PEEP on influx constant (p = .019). CONCLUSIONS: PEEP set above the LIP on the inspiratory limb of the pressure-volume curve affords a stronger lung protection than VT strategy.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 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".