Effects of the bronchoalveolar lavage procedure on lung function in horses with clinical exacerbation of recurrent airway obstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) alters respiratory mechanics of horses with recurrent airway obstruction (ie, heaves) over a 48-hour period. ANIMALS: 6 horses affected with heaves. PROCEDURES: Horses were subjected to a complete BAL procedure, which included sedation with xylazine and butorphanol, intratracheal administration of lidocaine, and instillation and aspiration of two 250-mL boluses of saline (0.9% NaCl) solution through an endoscope (study 1). To evaluate the effects of saline solution, horses were subjected to the same procedure without saline solution instillation and aspiration (study 2). Lastly, the endoscope was similarly introduced into the lower airways, without sedation or saline instillation and aspiration (study 3). Respiratory mechanics were performed at baseline (time 0) and at 3, 6, 12, 24, and 48 hours after each procedure. RESULTS: In study 1, BAL induced a significant decrease in pulmonary resistance lasting up to 6 hours. This may have resulted from clearance of mucus in large airways. We also observed a significant increase in lung elastance and transpulmonary pressure at 12 hours after BAL in all 3 studies, which may be attributed to a circadian effect. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Our results indicate that the temporal effects of BAL procedures on lung mechanics should be taken into account when designing research protocols involving horses with heaves. Future studies should address the immediate effects of BAL on lung function.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".