Alterations to surfactant precede physiological deterioration during high tidal volume ventilation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lung injury due to mechanical ventilation is associated with an impairment of endogenous surfactant. It is unknown whether this impairment is a consequence of or an active contributor to the development and progression of lung injury. To investigate this issue, the present study addressed three questions: Do alterations to surfactant precede physiological lung dysfunction during mechanical ventilation? Which components are responsible for surfactant's biophysical dysfunction? Does exogenous surfactant supplementation offer a physiological benefit in ventilation-induced lung injury? Adult rats were exposed to either a low-stretch [tidal volume (Vt) = 8 ml/kg, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) = 5 cmH2O, respiratory rate (RR) = 54-56 breaths/min (bpm), fractional inspired oxygen (Fi(O2)) = 1.0] or high-stretch (Vt = 30 ml/kg, PEEP = 0 cmH2O, RR = 14-16 bpm, Fi(O2) = 1.0) ventilation strategy and monitored for either 1 or 2 h. Subsequently, animals were lavaged and the composition and function of surfactant was analyzed. Separate groups of animals received exogenous surfactant after 1 h of high-stretch ventilation and were monitored for an additional 2 h. High stretch induced a significant decrease in blood oxygenation after 2 h of ventilation. Alterations in surfactant pool sizes and activity were observed at 1 h of high-stretch ventilation and progressed over time. The functional impairment of surfactant appeared to be caused by alterations to the hydrophobic components of surfactant. Exogenous surfactant treatment after a period of high-stretch ventilation mitigated subsequent physiological lung dysfunction. Together, these results suggest that alterations of surfactant are a consequence of the ventilation strategy that impair the biophysical activity of this material and thereby contribute directly to lung dysfunction over time.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".