The following is the abstract of the article discussed in the subsequent letter:
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sublingual and intestinal mucosal blood flow and Pco(2) were studied in a canine model of endotoxin-induced circulatory shock and resuscitation. Sublingual Pco(2) (Ps(CO(2))) was measured by using a novel fluorescent optrode-based technique and compared with lingual measurements obtained by using a Stowe-Severinghaus electrode [lingual Pco(2) (Pl(CO(2)))]. Endotoxin caused parallel changes in cardiac output, and in portal, intestinal mucosal, and sublingual blood flow (Q(s)). Different blood flow patterns were observed during resuscitation: intestinal mucosal blood flow returned to near baseline levels postfluid resuscitation and decreased by 21% after vasopressor resuscitation, whereas Q(s) rose to twice that of the preshock level and was maintained throughout the resuscitation period. Electrochemical and fluorescent Pco(2) measurements showed similar changes throughout the experiments. The shock-induced increases in Ps(CO(2)) and Pl(CO(2)) were nearly reversed after fluid resuscitation, despite persistent systemic arterial hypotension. Vasopressor administration induced a rebound of Ps(CO(2)) and Pl(CO(2)) to shock levels, despite higher cardiac output and Q(s), possibly due to blood flow redistribution and shunting. Changes in Pl(CO(2)) and Ps(CO(2)) paralleled gastric and intestinal Pco(2) changes during shock but not during resuscitation. We found that the lingual, splanchnic, and systemic circulations follow a similar pattern of blood flow variations in response to endotoxin shock, although discrepancies were observed during resuscitation. Restoration of systemic, splanchnic, and lingual perfusion can be accompanied by persistent tissue hypercarbia, mainly lingual and intestinal, more so when a vasopressor agent is used to normalize systemic hemodynamic variables.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.017 |
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".