Delivered dose estimate to standardize airway hyperresponsiveness assessment in mice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Airway hyperresponsiveness often constitutes a primary outcome in respiratory studies in mice. The procedure commonly employs aerosolized challenges, and results are typically reported in terms of bronchoconstrictor concentrations loaded into the nebulizer. Yet, because protocols frequently differ across studies, especially in terms of aerosol generation and delivery, direct study comparisons are difficult. We hypothesized that protocol variations could lead to differences in aerosol delivery efficiency and, consequently, in the dose delivered to the subject, as well as in the response. Thirteen nebulization patterns containing common protocol variations (nebulization time, duty cycle, particle size spectrum, air humidity, and/or ventilation profile) and using increasing concentrations of methacholine and broadband forced oscillations (flexiVent, SCIREQ, Montreal, Qc, Canada) were created, characterized, and studied in anesthetized naïve A/J mice. A delivered dose estimate calculated from nebulizer-, ventilator-, and subject-specific characteristics was introduced and used to account for protocol variations. Results showed that nebulization protocol variations significantly affected the fraction of aerosol reaching the subject site and the delivered dose, as well as methacholine reactivity and sensitivity in mice. From the protocol variants studied, addition of a slow deep ventilation profile during nebulization was identified as a key factor for optimization of the technique. The study also highlighted sensitivity differences within the lung, as well as the possibility that airway responses could be selectively enhanced by adequate control of nebulizer and ventilator settings. Reporting results in terms of delivered doses represents an important standardizing element for assessment of airway hyperresponsiveness in mice.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".