Chronic Hypoxia Accentuates Dysanaptic Lung Growth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Adults born and raised at high altitudes have larger lung volumes and greater pulmonary diffusion capacity compared with adults at low altitude; however, it remains unclear whether the air and tissue volumes have comparable increases and whether there is a difference in airway size. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of chronic hypoxia on lung growth using in vivo high-resolution computed tomography measurements. METHODS: Healthy adults born and raised at moderate altitude (2,000 m above sea level; n = 19) and at low altitude (400 m above sea level; n = 23) underwent high-resolution computed tomography. Differences in total lung, air, and tissue volume, mean lung density, as well as airway lumen and wall areas in anatomically matched airways were compared between groups. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: No significant differences for age, sex, weight, or height were found between the two groups (P > 0.05). In a multivariate regression model, altitude was a significant contributor for total lung volume (P = 0.02), air volume (P = 0.03), and tissue volume (P = 0.03), whereby the volumes were greater for the moderate- versus the low-altitude group. However, altitude was not a significant contributor for mean lung density (P = 0.35) or lumen and wall areas in anatomically matched segmental, subsegmental, and subsubsegmental airways. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the adult lung did not increase lung volume later in life by expansion of an existing number of alveoli, but rather from increased alveolarization early in life. In addition, chronic hypoxia accentuates dysanaptic lung growth by increasing the lung parenchyma but not the airways.
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) | 0.001 | 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".