Free Radical Scavengers and Diaphragm Injury Following Inspiratory Resistive Loading
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three groups of NZW rabbits were studied to examine the role of free radical scavengers in preventing diaphragm injury produced by inspiratory resistive load (IRL): control, IRL, and scavenger groups. An IRL (Pao: 45-55 cm H2O) was applied to the IRL and the scavenger groups on Day 1. Free radical scavengers (polyethylene glycol superoxide dismutase, N-acetylcysteine, and mannitol) were given (intravenously) to the scavenger group both before and after the IRL. All rabbits were killed on Day 3 to collect diaphragms. Point counting H&E-stained diaphragm x-sections indicated that abnormal diaphragm muscle in the IRL group was significantly greater than control (p < 0.01). However, it was significantly lower in the scavenger group than the IRL group (p < 0.05) and it did not differ from control. In vitro diaphragm physiological studies found that the twitch tension (p < 0.05) and maximal tension (p < 0.01) in the IRL group were significantly lower than control. The maximal tensions (p < 0.05) in the scavenger group were lower than control. After the fatigue protocol, diaphragmatic contractility in the scavenger group was similar to control and was better maintained compared with the IRL group. We conclude that free radical scavengers can prevent the development of diaphragm injury as evidenced by histology but the protection of diaphragm function is limited.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".