MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052456731 · doi:10.1152/ajplung.00160.2014

Animal models of bronchopulmonary dysplasia. The term rat models

2014· review· en· W2052456731 on OpenAlexaff
Megan O’Reilly, Bernard Thébaud

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Physiology-Lung Cellular and Molecular Physiology · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioWomen and Children’s Health Research InstituteUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBronchopulmonary dysplasiaAnimal modelMedicineLung diseaseLungRat modelGestationIntensive care medicineTherapeutic approachDiseasePediatricsPathologyBiologyPregnancyInternal medicineGestational age

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) is the chronic lung disease of prematurity that affects very preterm infants. Although advances in perinatal care have enabled the survival of infants born as early as 23-24 wk of gestation, the challenge of promoting lung growth while protecting the ever more immature lung from injury is now bigger. Consequently, BPD remains one of the most common complications of extreme prematurity and still lacks specific treatments. Progress in our understanding of BPD and the potential of developing therapeutic strategies have arisen from large (baboons, sheep, and pigs) and small (rabbits, rats, and mice) animal models. This review focuses specifically on the use of the rat to model BPD and summarizes how the model is used in various research studies and the advantages and limitations of this particular model, and it highlights recent therapeutic advances in BPD by using this rat model.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations217
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Physiology-Lung Cellular and Molecular PhysiologySame topicNeonatal Respiratory Health ResearchFrench-language works237,207