Zero-stress state of intra- and extraparenchymal airways from human, pig, rabbit, and sheep lung
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alterations in airway wall anatomic properties and the consequential effects on airway narrowing have been assessed by use of computational models. In these models, it is generally assumed that at zero transmural pressure the airway wall exists in a zero-stress state. Many studies have shown that this is often not the case, as evidenced by a nonzero opening angle. In this study, we measured the opening angle of airway rings at zero transmural pressure to test this assumption. The airway tree was dissected from human, pig, sheep, and rabbit lungs. Airways were excised from the tree, and the opening angle was measured. There were obvious species and regional differences in opening angle. Rabbit airways from both extraparenchymal and intraparenchymal sites exhibited marked opening angles (7-82 degrees). Extraparenchymal airways from sheep had large opening angles (up to 50 degrees), but ovine intraparenchymal airways had small opening angles. Measurable opening angles were rarely observed in human and porcine airways of any size. The assumption of a stable zero-stress state at zero transmural pressure is therefore valid for human and porcine, but not rabbit and sheep, airways.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".