Hypertonic Saline Resuscitation of Hemorrhagic Shock Diminishes Neutrophil Rolling and Adherence to Endothelium and Reduces In Vivo Vascular Leakage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the in vivo effects of hypertonic saline (HTS) resuscitation on the interactions of endothelial cells (ECs) and polymorphonuclear neutrophils (PMNs) and vascular permeability after hemorrhagic shock. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The PMN has been implicated in the pathogenesis of EC damage and organ injury following hemorrhagic shock. Compared to Ringer's lactate (RL), HTS resuscitation diminishes PMN and EC adhesion molecule expression and organ sequestration of PMNs. METHODS: In a murine model of hemorrhagic shock (50 mmHg for 45 minutes followed by resuscitation) using intravital microscopy on cremaster muscle, the authors studied PMN-EC interactions and vascular leakage (epifluorescence after 50 mg/kg fluorescent albumin) in three resuscitation groups: HTS (shed blood + 4 cc/kg 7.5% HTS, n = 12), RL (shed blood + RL [2x shed blood volume], n = 12), and sham (no hemorrhage or resuscitation, n = 9). EC ICAM-1 expression was evaluated by immunohistochemistry. Data, presented as mean +/- SEM, were evaluated by analysis of variance with Bonferroni correction. RESULTS: There were no differences between groups in flow mechanics. Compared to RL, HTS animals (t = 90 minutes) displayed diminished PMN rolling and PMN adhesion to EC at time intervals beyond t = 0. There were no differences between the sham and HTS groups. Vascular leakage was 45% lower in HTS than in RL-resuscitated animals. Cremaster EC ICAM-1 expression was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Using HTS instead of RL to resuscitate hemorrhagic shock diminishes vascular permeability in vivo by altering PMN-EC interactions. HTS could serve as a novel means of immunomodulation in hemorrhagic shock victims, potentially reducing PMN-mediated tissue injury.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".