MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169982075 · doi:10.1186/2197-425x-2-5

Administration of intrapulmonary sodium polyacrylate to induce lung injury for the development of a porcine model of early acute respiratory distress syndrome

2014· article· en· W2169982075 on OpenAlexafffundabout
William R. Henderson, Julian Barnbrook, Paolo B. Dominelli, Donald Griesdale, Tara Arndt, Yannick Molgat‐Seon, Glen E. Foster, Gareth L. Ackland, James Xu, Najib Ayas, A. William Sheel

Bibliographic record

VenueIntensive Care Medicine Experimental · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsVancouver General HospitalOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaVancouver Coastal Health Research InstituteUniversity of British ColumbiaAcademy of Medical SciencesNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchMichael Smith Health Research BCHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsMedicineARDSLungRespiratory distressRespiratory systemDiffuse alveolar damageAnesthesiaMechanical ventilationRespiratory diseaseAirwayPathologyAcute respiratory distressInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The loss of alveolar epithelial and endothelial integrity is a central component in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); however, experimental models investigating the mechanisms of epithelial injury are lacking. The purpose of the present study was to design and develop an experimental porcine model of ARDS by inducing lung injury with intrapulmonary administration of sodium polyacrylate (SPA). METHODS: The present study was performed at the Centre for Comparative Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia. Human alveolar epithelial cells were cultured with several different concentrations of SPA; a bioluminescence technique was used to assess cell death associated with each concentration. In the anesthetized pig model (female Yorkshire X pigs (n = 14)), lung injury was caused in 11 animals (SPA group) by injecting sequential aliquots (5 mL) of 1% SPA gel in aqueous solution into the distal airway via a rubber catheter through an endotracheal tube. The SPA was dispersed throughout the lungs by manual bag ventilation. Three control animals (CON group) underwent all experimental procedures and measurements with the exception of SPA administration. RESULTS: The mean (± SD) ATP concentration after incubation of human alveolar epithelial cells with 0.1% SPA (0.92 ± 0.27 μM/well) was approximately 15% of the value found for the background control (6.30 ± 0.37 μM/well; p < 0.001). Elastance of the respiratory system (E RS) and the lung (E L) increased in SPA-treated animals after injury (p = 0.003 and p < 0.001, respectively). Chest wall elastance (E CW) did not change in SPA-treated animals. There were no differences in E RS, E L, or E CW in the CON group when pre- and post-injury values were compared. Analysis of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid showed a significant shift toward neutrophil predominance from before to after injury in SPA-treated animals (p < 0.001) but not in the CON group (p = 0.38). Necropsy revealed marked consolidation and congestion of the dorsal lung lobes in SPA-treated animals, with light-microscopy evidence of bronchiolar and alveolar spaces filled with neutrophilic infiltrate, proteinaceous debris, and fibrin deposition. These findings were absent in animals in the CON group. Electron microscopy of lung tissue from SPA-treated animals revealed injury to the alveolar epithelium and basement membranes, including intra-alveolar neutrophils and fibrin on the alveolar surface and intravascular fibrin (microthrombosis). CONCLUSIONS: In this particular porcine model, the nonimmunogenic polymer SPA caused a rapid exudative lung injury. This model may be useful to study ARDS caused by epithelial injury and inflammation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.746

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.304 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIntensive Care Medicine ExperimentalSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207