Comparative respiratory system mechanics in rodents
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Because of the wide utilization of rodents as animal models in respiratory research and the limited data on measurements of respiratory input impedance (Zrs) in small animals, we measured Zrs between 0.25 and 9.125 Hz at different levels (0-7 hPa) of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in mice, rats, guinea pigs, and rabbits using a computer-controlled small-animal ventilator (Schuessler TF and Bates JHT, IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 42: 860-866, 1995). Zrs was fitted with a model, including a Newtonian resistance (R) and inertance in series with a constant-phase tissue compartment characterized by tissue damping (Gti) and elastance (Hti) parameters. Inertance was negligible in all cases. R, Gti, and Hti were normalized to body weight, yielding normalized R, Gti, and Hti (NHti), respectively. Normalized R tended to decrease slightly with PEEP and increased with animal size. Normalized Gti had a minimal dependence on PEEP. NHti decreased with increasing PEEP, reaching a minimum at approximately 5 hPa in all species except mice. NHti was also higher in mice and rabbits compared with guinea pigs and rats at low PEEPs, which we conclude is probably due to a relatively smaller air space volume in mice and rabbits. Our data also suggest that smaller rodents have proportionately wider airways than do larger animals. We conclude that a detailed, comparative study of respiratory system mechanics shows some evidence of structural differences among the lungs of various species but that, in general, rodent lungs obey scaling laws similar to those described in other species.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it