Effects of rapid saline infusion on lung mechanics and airway responsiveness in humans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lung mechanics and airway responsiveness to methacholine (MCh) were studied in seven volunteers before and after a 20-min intravenous infusion of saline. Data were compared with those of a time point-matched control study. The following parameters were measured: 1-s forced expiratory volume, forced vital capacity, flows at 40% of control forced vital capacity on maximal (Vm(40)) and partial (Vp(40)) forced expiratory maneuvers, lung volumes, lung elastic recoil, lung resistance (Rl), dynamic elastance (Edyn), and within-breath resistance of respiratory system (Rrs). Rl and Edyn were measured during tidal breathing before and for 2 min after a deep inhalation and also at different lung volumes above and below functional residual capacity. Rrs was measured at functional residual capacity and at total lung capacity. Before MCh, saline infusion caused significant decrements of forced expiratory volume in 1 s, Vm(40), and Vp(40), but insignificantly affected lung volumes, elastic recoil, Rl, Edyn, and Rrs at any lung volume. Furthermore, saline infusion was associated with an increased response to MCh, which was not associated with significant changes in the ratio of Vm(40) to Vp(40). In conclusion, mild airflow obstruction and enhanced airway responsiveness were observed after saline, but this was not apparently due to altered elastic properties of the lung or inability of the airways to dilate with deep inhalation. It is speculated that it was likely the result of airway wall edema encroaching on the bronchial lumen.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".