Individual Susceptibility to High Altitude and Immersion Pulmonary Edema and Pulmonary Lymphatics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: High-altitude pulmonary edema (HAPE) and immersion pulmonary edema (IPE) are potentially life-threatening conditions that affect athletes, including high-altitude climbers, long-distance swimmers, and underwater divers. The objectives of this study were to measure lung density (before and after exercise) and quantify the pulmonary lymphatic network in individuals susceptible and resistant to HAPE/IPE. METHODS: Eighteen male (N = 10) and female (N = 8) subjects were recruited. Based on medical histories, nine subjects were susceptible to HAPE/IPE, and nine were resistant. Subjects were matched for gender, age, height, weight, and cold-water diving or high-altitude trekking experiences. Lung mass and density (at three slice locations) were determined using computed tomography at rest and after intense exercise. Lung mass and density were calculated from X-ray attenuation values. Two blinded investigators counted interlobular septal lines according to criteria established by the research group. RESULTS: At rest, susceptible subjects had a lower lung density [Susceptible: 0.192 (0.035 SD) g ml 1'; Resistant: 0.22 (0.029 SD) g ml(-1))], a significantly lower lung mass [Susceptible: 132.1 (24.16 SD) g; Resistant: 156.1 (19.19 SD) g], and significantly fewer interlobular septa [Susceptible: 17 (4.5 SD); Resistant: 23 (7.1 SD)] compared to resistant subjects. The differences in density and mass were not affected by intense exercise. DISCUSSION: Subjects susceptible to HAPE/IPE had lower lung density, significantly lower lung mass, and fewer interlobular septa than subjects resistant to HAPE/IPE, suggesting a smaller pulmonary lymphatic network. The observed differences in lymphatics could represent either predisposing factors to, or sequelae of, these potentially lethal conditions.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".