The Development of Emphysema in Cigarette Smoke-exposed Mice Is Strain Dependent
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Only 20% of smokers develop chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. An important determinant of susceptibility is genomic variation. We undertook this study to define strains of mice with different susceptibilities for the development of smoking-induced emphysema because they could help identify genetic factors of susceptibility. NZWLac/J, C57BL6/J, A/J, SJ/L, and AKR/J strains were exposed to cigarette smoke for 6 months. Elastance (Htis), the extent of emphysema (mean linear intercept [Lm]), and the inflammatory cell and cytokine response were measured. NZWLac/J had no change in Lm or Htis (resistant). C57BL6/J, A/J, and SJ/L increased Lm, but not Htis (mildly susceptible). AKR/J increased Lm and Htis (super-susceptible). Only AKR/J had significant inflammation comprising macrophages, neutrophils, and T cells. The AKR/J showed an upregulation of Th1 cytokines whereas in the C57BL/6/J and NZWlac/J, cytokines did not change or were downregulated. We conclude that Lm, elastance, and inflammation are features that are needed to phenotype emphysema in mice. The inflammatory cell and cytokine profile may be an important determinant of the phenotype in response to cigarette smoke exposure. The identification of resistant and susceptible strains for the development of emphysema could be useful for genomic studies of emphysema susceptibility in mice and eventually in humans.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".