Regression of the Systemic Vasculature to the Lung after Removal of Pulmonary Artery Obstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Pulmonary artery occlusion stimulates angiogenesis in the systemic circulation of the ipsilateral lung and increases systemic- to-pulmonary blood flow. Whether this systemic neovascularization decreases after lung revascularization is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To assess the influence of lung revascularization on anatomy and flow of bronchial vessels supplying a chronically ischemic lung in piglets. METHODS: Piglets were studied before (control) and 5 wk after left pulmonary artery ligation and 5 wk after left pulmonary artery reimplantation into the pulmonary artery trunk. The systemic blood flow to the right and left lungs was measured using colored microspheres, and the bronchial vasculature was assessed using light-microscopic morphometry. Renal and total blood flow, systemic blood pressure, and pulmonary blood pressure were measured in each experimental condition. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Systemic blood flow to the left lung increased from 0.4 +/- 0.1 to 11.5 +/- 3.8 ml/min/g (p < 0.05) after left pulmonary artery ligation and returned toward the control value (1.2 +/- 0.6 ml/min/g) after revascularization, whereas it remained unchanged in the right lung. The number of bronchial vessels increased twofold in the ligated lung (p = 0.01), and did not decrease after reperfusion; however, vessel diameters decreased markedly. Renal and total blood flows, as well as mean pulmonary and systemic arterial pressures, were similar in the three experimental conditions. CONCLUSION: Revascularization after a period of left pulmonary artery occlusion normalizes the systemic blood flow to the left lung and induces partial loss of collateral vessels.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".