Evolution of the Inflammatory and Fibroproliferative Responses during Resolution and Repair after Ventilator-induced Lung Injury in the Rat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The time course and mechanisms of resolution and repair, and the potential for fibrosis following ventilation-induced lung injury (VILI), are unclear. We sought to examine the pattern of inflammation, injury, repair, and fibrosis following VILI. METHODS: Sixty anesthetized rats were subject to high-stretch; low-stretch, or sham ventilation, and randomly allocated to undergo periods of recovery of 6, 24, 48, and 96 h, and 7 and 14 days. Animals were then reanesthetized, and the extent of lung injury, inflammation, and repair determined. RESULTS: No injury was seen following low-stretch or sham ventilation. VILI caused severe lung injury, maximal at 24 h, but largely resolved by 96 h. Arterial oxygen tension decreased from a mean (SD) of 144.8 (4.1) mmHg to 96.2 (10.3) mmHg 6 h after VILI, before gradually recovering to 131.2 (14.3) mmHg at 96 h. VILI induced an early neutrophilic alveolitis and a later lymphocytic alveolitis, followed by a monocyte/macrophage infiltration. Alveolar tumor necrosis factor-α, interleukin-1β, and transforming growth factor-β1 concentrations peaked at 6 h and returned to baseline within 24 h, while interleukin-10 remained increased for 48 h. VILI generated a marked but transient fibroproliferative response, which restored normal lung architecture. There was no evidence of fibrosis at 7 and 14 days. CONCLUSIONS: High-stretch ventilation caused severe lung injury, activating a transient inflammatory and fibroproliferative repair response, which restored normal lung architecture without evidence of fibrosis.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".