Effects of High-Frequency Oscillation on Endogenous Surfactant in an Acute Lung Injury Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluated the effects of high-frequency oscillation (HFO) and conventional mechanical ventilation (CMV) on gas exchange and the pulmonary surfactant system in an acute lung injury model. Following induction of lung injury with N-nitroso-n-methylurethane, adult rabbits were anesthetized and randomized to one of the following ventilatory strategies: HFO for 120 min, CMV for 120 min, HFO for 60 min, followed by CMV for 60 min, CMV for 60 min followed by HFO for 60 min or CMV for 60 min. Separate animals were ventilated using CMV with a lower tidal volume and a positive end-expiratory pressure level that was increased throughout the experimental period. Oxygenation was significantly greater in animals ventilated with HFO compared with animals ventilated with CMV. The proportion of surfactant in large aggregate forms was significantly greater following ventilatory support with HFO compared with CMV. Surfactant aggregate conversion was also significantly lower during HFO compared with CMV. We conclude that in our model of acute lung injury, HFO was a superior mode of ventilation and reduced the conversion of alveolar surfactant large aggregates into small aggregate forms, resulting in a greater percentage of large aggregate forms in the alveolar space.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".