Gender differences in pulmonary regenerative response to naphthalene‐induced bronchiolar epithelial cell injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Accumulating evidence suggests that gender affects the incidence and severity of several pulmonary diseases. Previous studies on mice have shown gender differences in susceptibility to naphthalene-induced lung injury, where Clara cell damage was found to occur earlier and to be more extensive in females than in males. However, very little is known about whether there are any gender differences in subsequent lung repair responses. The aim of this study was to investigate whether gender plays an important role in pulmonary regenerative response to naphthalene-induced Clara cell ablation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adult male and female mice were injected with a low, medium, or high dose of naphthalene, and lung tissue regeneration was examined by immunohistochemical staining for cell proliferation marker (Ki-67) and mitosis marker (phosphohistone-3). RESULTS: Histopathological analysis showed that naphthalene-induced Clara cell necrosis was more prominent in the lungs of female mice as compared to male mice. Cell proliferation and mitosis in both the distal bronchiolar airway epithelium and peribronchiolar interstitium of female mice was significantly greater than that of male mice after treatment with the low and medium doses. However, after treatment with high dose of naphthalene, lung regeneration was delayed in female mice, while male mice mounted a timely regenerative response. CONCLUSIONS: These findings show that there are clear gender differences in naphthalene-induced lung injury and repair.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".