Host response to intratracheally instilled bacteria in ventilated and nonventilated rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Pneumonia occurs in approximately 7% of hospitalized patients. Susceptibility to certain bacteria such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa increases in critically ill patients, particularly those requiring mechanical ventilation. Previous studies investigating this susceptibility have used injurious modes of ventilation. The objective of this study was to evaluate the host's response to intratracheal instillation of P. aeruginosa in the setting of noninjurious mechanical ventilation and compare this with normal, spontaneously breathing animals receiving bacteria. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled in vivo animal study. SETTING: Research laboratory at a university-affiliated institution. SUBJECTS: Adult male Sprague-Dawley rats. INTERVENTIONS: Rats were randomized into four groups: spontaneously breathing given saline, spontaneously breathing given bacteria, mechanically ventilated given saline, and mechanically ventilated given bacteria. The ventilation strategy used involved low stretch (tidal volume of 8 mL/kg) with a positive end-expiratory pressure of 5 cm H2O. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Lung compliance, bacterial recovery, surfactant, total cells, and cytokine concentrations in the lung lavage were analyzed after 4 hrs. Results showed that neither ventilation nor bacteria alone altered lung function, although the combination of ventilation and Pseudomonas significantly decreased arterial oxygenation and lung compliance. Increases in lavage cell counts, cytokines, and surfactant were observed in both groups administered bacteria compared with animals given saline. However, there were no significant differences in bacterial recovery, cell counts, cytokines, and surfactant measurements in the groups given bacteria. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that bacterial instillation with low-stretch ventilation had a significant effect on lung function but did not alter the inflammatory response to a bacterial challenge over this time course compared with spontaneously breathing animals.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".