MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121462597 · doi:10.1258/002367706778476398

Effects of an individually ventilated cage system on the airway integrity of rats ( <i>Rattus norvegicus</i> ) in a laboratory in Brazil

2006· article· en· W2121462597 on OpenAlexaff
M. A. Teixeira, L.C.A.G. Chaguri, Alícia Carissimi, N L Souza, Cláudia Madalena Cabrera Mori, Paulo Hilário Nascimento Saldiva, Miriam Lemos, Mariângela Macchione, Eliane Tigre Guimarães, Malcolm King, José Luiz Bernardino Merusse

Bibliographic record

VenueLaboratory Animals · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsRespiratory systemVentilation (architecture)MucusAnimal scienceAirwayRespiratory tractMedicineLungChemistryPhysiologyAnesthesiaBiologyAnatomyInternal medicineEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ventilation method used in the management of laboratory rats is important in maintaining their health. Rats kept under general diluting ventilation (GDV) are exposed to high levels of pollutants present in the environment (dust, airborne bacteria, etc.) or those pollutants produced by animal metabolism and excretion inside the boxes (e.g. ammonia and carbon dioxide). These pollutants may contribute to respiratory pathologies. An alternative experimental ventilation system for laboratory animal housing using intracage ventilation technology (individually ventilated cage system, IVC) was developed. In this system, ammonia levels decreased and rats exhibited better reproductive performance and a lower incidence of pneumonia than rats maintained under GDV. Using two different levels of air speed (0.03-0.26 m/s: IVC(1); 0.27-0.80 m/s: IVC(2)), the effects of IVC were compared with GDV (control) in Wistar rats in terms of respiratory mucus properties, on the nasal epithelium (as measured by quantitative morphometry) and on the lungs (as determined by the cellular composition obtained by bronchoalveolar lavage). Mucus of the respiratory system was evaluated using the following techniques: rheology (viscoelasticity) by microrheometer, in vitro mucociliary transportability (frog palate) and contact angle (an indicator of adhesivity). Also, membrane transepithelial potential difference was measured as a biomarker of airway integrity. After bedding was changed, ammonia concentrations inside the cages on day 3 were significantly higher for GDV than for IVC(1) and IVC(2). The potential-difference values for IVC(1), IVC(2) and GDV in the epiglottis and in the trachea also showed differences. Although some significant differences were observed across the three groups in counts of some cell types, the intragroup results were highly variable among individuals and inconsistent between sexes. No significant differences in the other parameters were found across groups. These results establish that rats maintained under GDV in relatively unregulated conditions are exposed to factors that can lead to deleterious effects on the ciliated epithelium of the airways, and that these effects can be prevented by the use of IVC.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.240 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLaboratory AnimalsSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207