Translational Research: Animal Models of Obliterative Bronchiolitis after Lung Transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Obliterative bronchiolitis (OB) or chronic graft dysfunction remains the major limitation to long-term success of lung transplantation. Investigation using animal models is a critical component of research to understand the underlying pathological mechanisms and to develop novel preventive and therapeutic strategies for OB. Multiple animal models of OB exist, including orthotopic lung transplantation in rodents and large animals, orthotopic tracheal transplantation and heterotopic transplantation of a trachea in variable sites such as subcutaneous, intraomental and intrapulmonary sites. The most important issue for researchers is not specifically which model is the best but which is the most appropriate model to test their scientific hypothesis. For example, while orthotopic lung transplantation best mimics the overall surgical procedure, a question regarding fibrotic processes of OB may be better answered using heterotopic tracheal transplant models because of their reliable reproducibility of allograft obliterative airway fibrosis. Animal models should be continuously refined, modified and sometimes combined to fit the particular research purpose. We review the available animal models, their modifications and possible applications to assist researchers in choosing the appropriate model for their intended research.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".