Lung Development and Susceptibility to Ventilator-induced Lung Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Ventilator-induced lung injury has been predominantly studied in adults. OBJECTIVES: To explore the effects of age and lung development on susceptibility to such injury. METHODS: Ex vivo isolated nonperfused rat lungs (infant, juvenile, and adult) were mechanically ventilated where VT was based on milliliters per kilogram of body weight or as a percentage of the measured total lung capacity (TLC). In vivo anesthetized rats (infant, adult) were mechanically ventilated with pressure-limited VTs. Allocation to ventilation strategy was randomized. MEASUREMENTS: Ex vivo injury was assessed by pressure-volume analysis, reduction in TLC, and histology, and in vivo injury by lung compliance, cytokine production, and wet- to dry-weight ratio. MAIN RESULTS: Ex vivo ventilation (VT 30 ml.kg(-1)) resulted in a significant reduction (36.0 +/- 10.1%, p < 0.05) in TLC in adult but not in infant lungs. Ex vivo ventilation (VT 50% TLC) resulted in a significant reduction in TLC in both adult (27.8 +/- 2.8%) and infant (10.6 +/- 7.0%) lungs, but more so in the adult lungs (p < 0.05); these changes were paralleled by histology and pressure-volume characteristics. After high stretch in vivo ventilation, adult but not infant rats developed lung injury (total lung compliance, wet/dry ratio, tumor necrosis factor alpha). Surface video microscopy demonstrated greater heterogeneity of alveolar distension in ex vivo adult versus infant lungs. CONCLUSION: These data provide ex vivo and in vivo evidence that comparable ventilator settings are significantly more injurious in the adult than infant rat lung, probably reflecting differences in intrinsic susceptibility or inflation pattern.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".