Buffering Hypercapnic Acidosis Worsens Acute Lung Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hypoventilation, associated with hypercapnic acidosis (HCA), may improve outcome in acute lung injury (ALI). We have recently reported that HCA per se protects against ALI. The current study explored whether the mechanisms of protection with HCA were related to acidosis versus hypercapnia. Because CO(2) equilibrates rapidly across cell membranes, we hypothesized that (1) HCA would afford greater protection than metabolic acidosis. We further hypothesized that (2) buffering HCA would attenuate its protection. Forty isolated perfused rabbit lung preparations were randomized to: control (normal pH, PCO(2)); HCA; metabolic acidosis; or buffered hypercapnia. After ischemia-reperfusion (IR) injury wet:dry ratio was greatest with control and buffered hypercapnia, and rank order of capillary filtration coefficient was: control approximately buffered hypercapnia > metabolic acidosis > HCA. Isogravimetric pressure reduction was greatest with buffered hypercapnia. Despite comparable injury, pulmonary artery pressure elevation was less with buffered hypercapnia versus control. In vitro xanthine oxidase (XO) activity depended on pH, not PCO(2). We conclude that: (1) HCA and metabolic acidosis are protective, but HCA is the most protective; (2) buffering HCA attenuates its protection; (3) buffering HCA causes pulmonary vasodilation; (4) because metabolic acidosis and HCA similarly inhibit in vitro XO activity, the differential effects cannot be explained solely on the basis of extracellular XO activity.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".