Evaluation of alveolar surfactant aggregates<i>in vitro</i>and<i>in vivo</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In acute lung injury, a decrease in surface-active large aggregates and an increase in the less surface-active small surfactant aggregates are observed. The objective of the current study was to determine if the increase in small aggregates interfered with the function of large aggregates, thereby independently contributing to lung dysfunction. Isolated large aggregates, small aggregates, and large aggregate+small aggregate combinations were analysed for in vitro surface activity utilizing a pulsating bubble surfactometer. Subsequently, large aggregates, small aggregates, and large aggregate+ small aggregate combinations were administered to surfactant-deficient, adult Sprague-Dawley rats. Physiological parameters were measured during 1 h of ventilation. After sacrifice, the whole lung lavage was analysed for protein concentration, and surface activity of the recovered large aggregates. The minimum surface tension of the large aggregate+small aggregate preparations (10 mN x m(-1)) was significantly higher than large aggregates alone (1 mN x m(-1)), but lower than small aggregates alone (21 mN x m(-1) ) after 100 pulsations. In vivo, rats receiving large aggregates+small aggregates showed immediate increases in oxygenation, similar to animals given large aggregates, whereas animals given small aggregates and control animals maintained low oxygenation values. In conclusion, small aggregates interfered with large aggregates function in vitro, but this was not observed in vivo in this experimental model.
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 | 0.001 | 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".