Comparative cardiopulmonary effects of size-fractionated airborne particulate matter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Strong epidemiological evidence exists linking particulate matter (PM) exposures with hospital admissions of individuals for cardiopulmonary symptoms. The PM size is important in influencing the extent of infiltration into the respiratory tract and systemic circulation and directs the differential physiological impacts. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the differential effects of the quasi-ultrafine (PM(0.2)), fine (PM(0.15-2.5)), and coarse PM (PM(2.5-10)) size fractions on pulmonary and cardiac function. METHODS: Female BALB/c mice were exposed to HEPA-filtered laboratory air or concentrated coarse, fine, or quasi-ultrafine PM using Harvard Ambient Particle Concentrators in conjunction with our nose-only exposure system. These exposures were conducted as part of the "Health Effects of Aerosols in Toronto (HEAT)" campaign. Following a 4 h exposure, mice underwent assessment of respiratory function and recording of electrocardiograms using the flexiVent® system. RESULTS: Exposure to coarse and fine PM resulted in a significant reduction in quasistatic compliance of the lung. Baseline total respiratory resistance and maximum responsiveness to methacholine were augmented after coarse PM exposures but were not affected by quasi-ultrafine PM exposures. In contrast, quasi-ultrafine PM alone had a significant effect on heart rate and in reducing heart rate variability. CONCLUSION: These findings indicate that coarse and fine PM influence lung function and airways responsiveness, while ultrafine PM can perturb cardiac function. This study supports the hypothesis that coarse and fine PM exerts its predominant physiologic effects at the site of deposition in the airways, whereas ultrafine PM likely crosses the alveolar epithelial barrier into the systemic circulation to affect cardiovascular function.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".