MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2263997522 · doi:10.1152/jappl.2000.89.2.791

Natural history of severe decompression sickness after rapid ascent from air saturation in a porcine model

2000· article· en· W2263997522 on OpenAlexaff
David M. Dromsky, Charles B. Toner, Shalini S. Survanshi, Andreas Fahlman, E. C. Parker, P. K. Weathersby

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Physiology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHigh Altitude and Hypoxia
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDecompression sicknessDecompressionMedicineAnesthesiaChemistrySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We developed a swine model to describe the untreated natural history of severe decompression sickness (DCS) after direct ascent from saturation conditions. In a recompression chamber, neutered male Yorkshire swine were pressurized to a predetermined depth from 50-150 feet of seawater [fsw; 2.52-5.55 atmospheres absolute (ATA)]. After 22 h, they returned to the surface (1 ATA) at 30 fsw/min (0.91 ATA/min) without decompression stops and were observed. Depth was the primary predictor of DCS incidence (R = 0.52, P < 0.0001) and death (R = 0.54, P < 0.0001). Severe DCS, defined as neurological or cardiopulmonary impairment, occurred in 78 of 128 animals, and 42 of 51 animals with cardiopulmonary DCS died within 1 h after surfacing. Within 24 h, 29 of 30 survivors with neurological DCS completely resolved their deficits without intervention. Pretrial Monte Carlo analysis decreased subject requirement without sacrificing power. This model provides a useful platform for investigating the pathophysiology of severe DCS and testing therapeutic interventions. The results raise important questions about present models of human responses to similar decompressive insults.

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 score0.436
Threshold uncertainty score0.382

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations28
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied PhysiologySame topicHigh Altitude and HypoxiaFrench-language works237,207