Physiological and inflammatory response to instillation of an oxidized surfactant in a rat model of surfactant deficiency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pulmonary surfactant is a mixture of phospholipids ( approximately 90%) and surfactant-associated proteins (SPs) ( approximately 10%) that stabilize the lung by reducing the surface tension. One proposed mechanism by which surfactant is altered during acute lung injury is via direct oxidative damage to surfactant. In vitro studies have revealed that the surface activity of oxidized surfactant was impaired and that this effect could be overcome by adding SP-A. On the basis of this information, we hypothesized that animals receiving oxidized surfactant preparations would exhibit an inferior physiological and inflammatory response and that the addition of SP-A to the oxidized preparations would ameliorate this response. To test this hypothesis, mechanically ventilated, surfactant-deficient rats were administered either bovine lipid extract surfactant (BLES) or in vitro oxidized BLES of three doses: 10 mg/kg, 50 mg/kg, or 10 mg/kg + SP-A. When instilled with 10 mg/kg normal surfactant, the rats had a significantly superior arterial Po2 responses compared with the rats receiving oxidized surfactant. Interestingly, increasing the dose five times mitigated this physiological effect, and the addition of SP-A to the surfactant preparation had little impact on improving oxygenation. There were no differences in alveolar surfactant pools and the indexes of pulmonary inflammation between the 10 mg/kg dose groups, nor was there any differences observed between either of the groups supplemented with SP-A. However, there was significantly more surfactant and more inflammatory cytokines in the 50 mg/kg oxidized BLES group compared with the 50 mg/kg BLES group. We conclude that instillation of an in vitro oxidized surfactant causes an inferior physiological response in a surfactant-deficient rat.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 |
| 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".