MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092320181 · doi:10.7150/ijms.3880

Inhaled Nitric Oxide Therapy Fails to Improve Outcome in Experimental Severe Influenza

2012· article· en· W2092320181 on OpenAlexafffund
Ilyse Darwish, Christopher C.J. Miller, Kevin C. Kain, W. Conrad Liles

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Medical Sciences · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfluenza Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAdvanced Research Projects AgencyDefense Advanced Research Projects AgencyCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsIn vivoVirusNitric oxideInfluenza A virusMedicineIn vitroViral loadLungVirologyImmunologyBiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In vitro, nitric oxide (NO) has been shown to have antimicrobial activity against a wide range of viruses, including influenza A virus. Therefore, we hypothesized that inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) would increase survival in vivo by reducing the viral load in C57Bl/6 mice infected with a lethal dose of influenza A/WSN/33 (H1N1; WSN/33) virus. NO was delivered to influenza-infected mice either continuously or intermittently at 80 or 160 ppm, respectively, using both prophylactic and post-infection treatment strategies. Murine survival and weight loss were assessed, and lung viral load was quantified via plaque assay. Here, we report that iNO administered prophylactically or post-influenza infection failed to improve survival of infected mice. No difference in lung viral load was observed between experimental groups. Although NO has antiviral activity against influenza A virus in vitro, iNO therapy provided no apparent benefit when used for treatment of influenza A virus infection in vivo.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.761

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.175
GPT teacher head0.499
Teacher spread0.323 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Medical SciencesSame topicInfluenza Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207