Harvesting airway surface liquid: A comparison of two techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The quantity and composition of airway surface liquid (ASL) are essential to host defense. To date, attempts to harvest ASL and measure its composition have yielded conflicting results. We investigated the physical principles underlying two techniques that were proposed for harvesting ASL: filter paper pledgets and polyethylene catheters. We compared the force and pressure generation and the kinematics of capillarity-induced fluid uptake with both techniques. Both have significant limitations for harvesting ASL, generating physiologically significant pressures (filter paper, 60.4 Pa; polyethylene, 14.3 Pa) that could potentially compromise epithelial integrity. Furthermore, filter paper generates a force 85-fold higher than the polyethylene catheter, which is associated with a very high rate of uptake of liquid and a large total amount of liquid relative to ASL thickness. While the PE catheter harvests liquid more gently, it is only effective when ASL surface tension is below 31 mN/m. These limitations likely account for some of the variability in reported ASL composition, and highlight the need for improved methods for harvesting ASL.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".