MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2229619614 · doi:10.1152/jappl.2001.90.6.2269

Morphological and functional recovery from diaphragm injury: an in vivo rat diaphragm injury model

2001· article· en· W2229619614 on OpenAlexaff
Maurice Hayot, Esther Barreiro, Ana Armesto Pérez, G. Czaika, Alain Steve Comtois, A. Grassino

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Physiology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicExercise and Physiological Responses
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMcGill UniversityChristie (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiaphragm muscleIn vivoDiaphragm (acoustics)CaffeineAnatomyDiaphragmatic breathingChemistryMedicineBiologyRespiratory systemInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our objective was to develop an in vivo model to study the timing and mechanisms underlying diaphragm injury and repair. Diaphragm injury was induced in anesthetized rats by the application of a 100 mM caffeine solution for a 10-min period to the right abdominal diaphragm surface. Diaphragms were removed 1, 4, 6, 12, 24, 48, 72, and 96 h and 10 days after the injury, with contractile function being assessed in strips in vitro by force-frequency curves. The extent of caffeine-induced membrane injury was indicated by the percentage of fibers with a fluorescent cytoplasm revealed by inward leakage of the procion orange dye. One hour after caffeine exposure, 32.9 +/- 3.1 (SE) % of fibers showed membrane injury that resulted in 70% loss of muscle force. Within 72-96 h, the percentage of fluorescent cells decreased to control values. Muscle force, however, was still reduced by 30%. Complete muscle strength recovery was observed 10 days after the injury. Whereas diaphragmatic fiber repair occurred within 4 days after injury induction, force recovery took up to 10 days. We suggest that the caffeine-damaged rat diaphragm is a useful model to study the timing and mechanisms of muscle 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 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.877
Threshold uncertainty score0.707

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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations9
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied PhysiologySame topicExercise and Physiological ResponsesFrench-language works237,207