Pulmonary Air Embolization Inhibits Lung Lymph Flow by Increasing Lymphatic Outflow Pressure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Air embolization of the pulmonary vascular tree increases pulmonary microvascular filtration and induces pulmonary edema formation. Flow from cannulated pulmonary lymphatic vessels increases significantly following air embolization. However, in the intact animal, lymph flows into the venous system and the magnitude of lymph flow is directly affected by systemic venous pressure. We hypothesized that pulmonary air embolization would lead to systemic venous hypertension and that this increase in lymphatic outflow pressure would prevent an increase in pulmonary lymph flow. METHODS AND RESULTS: Pulmonary air embolization was induced in dogs under general anesthesia. Flow from cannulated pulmonary lymphatic vessels was recorded for lymphatic outflow pressure set equal to atmospheric pressure (Q(LA)) and for outflow pressure set equal to systemic venous pressure (Q(LV)) both before and after embolization. Air embolization resulted in significant increases in systemic venous pressure from 6.4 +/- 0.3 to 12.4 +/- 1.2 mm Hg and in QLA from 48 +/- 9 to 175 +/- 29 microL . min(1). However, embolization did not increase Q(LV) (10 +/- 2 vs. 3 +/- 3 microl . min(1)). CONCLUSIONS: Pulmonary air embolization impedes pulmonary lymph flow by increasing systemic venous pressure and, thereby, contributes to pulmonary edema formation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".