MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effects of cyclic opening and closing at low- and high-volume ventilation on bronchoalveolar lavage cytokines*

2004· article· en· W2020406725 on OpenAlexaff
Eric K. Chu, Arthur S. Slutsky

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBronchoalveolar lavageTidal volumePositive end-expiratory pressureVentilation (architecture)LungMechanical ventilationAnesthesiaAtelectasisInternal medicineRespiratory system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To examine the mechanisms of ventilator-induced lung injury at low and high lung volumes. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, laboratory study. SETTING: University research laboratory. SUBJECTS: Eighty-eight adult male Sprague-Dawley rats. INTERVENTIONS: Mechanical ventilation using low and high lung volumes. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: An ex vivo rat lung model was used. In study I (ventilation at low lung volumes), rat lungs (n = 40) were randomly assigned to various modes of ventilation: a) opening and closing with positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP; control): tidal volume 7 mL/kg and PEEP 5 cm H2O; b) opening and closing from zero end-expiratory pressure (ZEEP): tidal volume 7 mL/kg and PEEP 0; or c) atelectasis. Peak inspiratory pressure was monitored at the beginning and end of 3 hrs of ventilation. At the end of 3 hrs of ventilation, the lungs were lavaged, and the concentrations of tumor necrosis factor-alpha, macrophage inflammatory protein-2, and interleukin-6 cytokines were measured in the lavage. In study II (ventilation at high volumes), rat lungs (n = 45) were randomly assigned to a) cyclic lung stretch: pressure-controlled ventilation, peak inspiratory pressure 50 cm H2O, and PEEP 8 cm H2O; b) continuous positive airway pressure at 50 cm H2O (CPAP50); or c) CPAP at the mean airway pressure of the cyclic stretch group (CPAP 31 cm H2O). Bronchoalveolar lavage cytokine concentrations (tumor necrosis factor-alpha, macrophage inflammatory protein-2, and interleukin-6) were measured at the end of 3 hrs of ventilation. In the low volume study, there was no difference in bronchoalveolar lavage cytokine concentrations between the PEEP group and the atelectatic group. All cytokines were significantly higher in the ZEEP group compared with the atelectasis group. Macrophage inflammatory protein-2 was significantly higher in the ZEEP group compared with the PEEP group. Lung compliance, as reflected by change in peak inspiratory pressure, was also significantly worse in the ZEEP compared with the PEEP group. In the high-volume study, tumor necrosis factor-alpha and interleukin-6 were significantly higher in the cyclic stretch group compared with the CPAP 31 group. There was no significant difference between the cytokine concentrations in the cyclic stretch group compared with the CPAP 50 group. CONCLUSION: We conclude that at low lung volumes, cyclic opening and closing from ZEEP leads to greater increases in bronchoalveolar lavage cytokines than atelectasis. With high-volume ventilation, over time, the degree of overdistension is more associated with increases in bronchoalveolar lavage cytokines than cyclic opening and closing alone.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.156
Threshold uncertainty score0.553

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations167
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care MedicineSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207