Unrestrained plethysmography is an unreliable measure of airway responsiveness in BALB/c and C57BL/6 mice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There has been significant utilization of the technique described by Hamelmann et al. (Am J Respir Crit Care Med 156: 766-775, 1997) in which a parameter, enhanced pause (Penh), related to airways responsiveness is noninvasively measured by unrestrained plethysmography (UP). Investigating this technique, we sought to answer these questions: 1). How do changes in Penh compare with changes in traditional plethysmographic and lung mechanical parameters? 2). How do UP parameters perform in two different mouse strains? Awake immunized and control BALB/c (n = 16) and C57BL/6 (n = 14) mice were placed in the UP chamber and exposed to doses of aerosolized methacholine while the following parameters were measured at each concentration: inspiratory time (Ti), expiratory time (Te), total time (Ttot), Ti/Ttot, peak inspiratory pressure, peak expiratory pressure, Pause, Penh, tidal volume (Vt), Vt/Ti, Vt/Te, and Vt/Ttot. The next day, lung resistance (Rl) and compliance (Cl) were invasively measured in the same animals. For the BALB/c, the parameters with the highest magnitude of correlation coefficient vs. Rl are (in order) 1). Cl, 2). Pause and Penh, 3). parameters of breathing frequency (Te, Ttot, Ti), and 4). parameters related to Vt (inspiratory pressure, expiratory pressure). Flow parameters (Vt/Ttot, Vt/Te, Vt/Ti) and duty cycle parameters (Ti/Ttot) had insignificant correlations. This ordering is significantly different in C57BL/6 mice, in which the parameters with the largest correlations are 1). Cl, 2). parameters of breathing frequency, and 3). flow parameters. Pause, Penh, Vt, and duty cycle parameters had insignificant correlations. These data show that Penh is problematic in the sense that it is strain specific; it behaves very differently in BALB/c and C57BL/6 mice. We suggest that UP parameters largely originate as part of reflex control of breathing processes, rather than in the lung mechanics and conclude that it is inappropriate to use UP parameters in general, and Penh specifically, as substitute variables for invasive mechanical indexes such as Rl.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".