MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046674828 · doi:10.1159/000243420

Autoradiographic Localization and Effects of Exogenous Radioactively Labelled Surfactant in the Lung of the Prematurely Delivered Fetal Rabbit

2009· article· en· W2046674828 on OpenAlexaff
Isabel Winter, J. E. Scott, M.R. Oullon, Dora A. Stinson, A C Allen

Bibliographic record

VenueBiology of the Neonate · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPulmonary surfactantLungFetusLagomorphaPathologyGestational ageChemistryMedicineAnatomyBiologyInternal medicinePregnancyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adult rabbit lung surfactant was radioactively labelled with [3H]palmitate and isolated by centrifugation. This material was instilled into the trachea of fetal rabbits prematurely delivered on the 27th gestational day. A similar preparation of unlabelled surfactant was used to measure the effects on pressure-volume characteristics in lungs of 27th day fetuses. Tissue sections were prepared from the lungs of all animals and morphometric and autoradiographic determinations made. Surfactant instillation improved pressure-volume relationships in fetal rabbit lungs. Histologically, although only the middle right lobe seemed to show significant qualitative improvement in expansion after surfactant treatment, quantitative assessment indicated that the surfactant preparation had significantly increased the mean alveolar cross-sectional areas in all three lobes of right lungs. In addition, distribution of autoradiographic grains indicated that 8-25% were located over the alveolar spaces while approximately half this percentage was present over tissue at the level of the alveolus. These results indicate that intratracheal instillation of surfactant supplements the endogenous surfactant at the level of the alveolus.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.724
Threshold uncertainty score0.241

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiology of the NeonateSame topicNeonatal Respiratory Health ResearchFrench-language works237,207