Cytologic and biochemical changes associated with inoculation of amniotic fluid and meconium into lungs of neonatal rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of homologous amniotic fluid and meconium inoculated intratracheally into the lungs of neonatal rats. ANIMALS: 153 male 7-day-old Fischer-344 rats. PROCEDURE: Amniotic fluid was obtained by cesarean section from the uterus of pregnant rats and meconium was collected at the time of birth from the gastrointestinal tract of neonatal rats. Neonatal rats were randomly allocated into 5 treatment groups. Two groups received 0.05 ml of saline (0.9% NaCl) solution; the third and fourth groups received 0.05 ml of 50% or 100% amniotic fluid, respectively; the fifth group was inoculated with 0.05 ml of a 20% suspension of meconium. Six or 7 rat pups/group were euthanatized by exsanguination under halothane anesthesia at postinoculation days 1, 3, 7, and 14. The magnitude of injury and inflammatory response was determined by biochemical and cytologic analyses of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid. RESULTS: Inoculation with saline solution and amniotic fluid did not induce pulmonary injury or inflammatory response. Inoculation with meconium induced significant (P < 0.01) injury and inflammatory response, characterized by the release of cytosolic enzymes and recruitment of neutrophils in the lung. CONCLUSIONS: Saline solution is an innocuous vehicle that can be safely used in intratracheal inoculations in neonatal rats. Homologous amniotic fluid, despite containing keratin and epidermal cells, does not cause acute injury or inflammation in the lung. In contrast, meconium acts as a toxic substance injuring respiratory cells and causing a vigorous but transient leukocytic inflammatory reaction in the lungs.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".