MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025690142 · doi:10.1164/rccm.200712-1832oc

Airway Bypass Improves the Mechanical Properties of Explanted Emphysematous Lungs

2008· article· en· W2025690142 on OpenAlexaff
Cliff K. Choong, Peter T. Macklem, John A. Pierce, Nitin A. Das, Barbara A. Lutey, Carlo O. Martinez, Joel D. Cooper

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTransplantation: Methods and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMedicineAirwayIntensive care medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RATIONALE: By creating artificial communications through bronchial walls into the parenchyma of explanted lungs (airway bypass), we expect to decrease the amount of gas trapped and to increase the rate and volume of air expelled during forced expirations. OBJECTIVES: To describe the mechanism by which airway bypass improves the mechanical properties of the emphysematous lung. METHODS: Lung compartments and mechanics were measured before and after airway bypass, which was created by placement of three or four stent-supported fenestrations in 10 emphysematous lungs removed at transplantation surgery. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Minimal volume after passive deflation decreased by a mean of 1.54 L (range, 0.7-2.5 L) or 60% (range, 37-86%). Explanted VC increased by 1.30 L or 132% (range, 78-318%). Maximal expiratory flows and volumes increased. Flow resistance decreased. CONCLUSIONS: Because these data show that airway bypass improves the mechanics of breathing in severely emphysematous lungs in vitro, there is now strong empirical support that this procedure can improve ventilatory function in patients by reducing gas trapping and flow resistance.

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 score0.379
Threshold uncertainty score0.709

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Citations50
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care MedicineSame topicTransplantation: Methods and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207