The effects of long-term conventional mechanical ventilation on the lungs of adult rats*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ventilation-induced lung injury is often studied in animal models by using ventilation strategies with high-tidal volumes and high-oxygen concentration over a relatively short period of time. The injury induced by these ventilation strategies includes alterations to the surfactant system and up-regulation of inflammatory markers. Whether these responses to ventilation occur with more clinically relevant ventilation strategies is not known. OBJECTIVE: To assess how healthy adult rats respond to 24 hrs of conventional mechanical ventilation with respect to lung physiology, markers of inflammation, and alterations to pulmonary surfactant, and how this is affected by the oxygen concentration. INTERVENTIONS: Adult rats were mechanically ventilated for 24 hrs with a tidal volume of 8 mL/kg, 5 cm H2O positive end-expiratory pressure, at 60 breaths/min with either 21% or 100% oxygen. Animals were monitored for blood oxygenation and other physiologic parameters. After ventilation, lungs were lavaged and analyzed for inflammatory markers and pulmonary surfactant. These outcomes were compared with measurements obtained from spontaneously breathing rats exposed to either 21% or 100% oxygen for 24 hrs. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-four hours of ventilation did not result in significant changes in blood oxygenation. Inflammatory markers, such as interleukin-6 concentration and the number of neutrophils in the lavage, were increased in ventilated animals compared with the nonventilated controls, regardless of the level of inspired oxygen. The amount of active surfactant was increased after ventilation; however, the surface activity of this material was impaired as compared with controls. CONCLUSION: Prolonged mechanical ventilation of health lungs with a physiologically benign strategy can contribute to the inflammatory response and cause alterations to pulmonary surfactant.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".