Clearance of bile and trypsin in rat lungs following aspiration of human gastric fluid
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: In the clinical setting, there is no reliable tool for diagnosing gastric aspiration. A potential way of diagnosing gastric fluid aspiration entails bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) with subsequent examination of the BAL fluid for gastric fluid components that are exogenous to the lungs. The objective of this study was to determine the longevity of the gastric fluid components bile and trypsin in the lung, in order to provide an estimate of the time frame in which assessment of these components in the BAL might effectively be used as a measure of aspiration. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Human gastric fluid (0.5 mg/kg) was infused in the right lung of intubated male Fischer 344 rats (n = 30). Animals were sacrificed at specified times following the experimentally induced aspiration, and bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) was collected. Bile concentrations were analyzed by an enzyme-linked chromatogenic method, and the concentration of trypsin was quantified using an ELISA. Data were analyzed using non-linear regression and a one-phase decay equation. RESULTS: In this experimental model, the half-life of bile was 9.3 hours (r(2) = 0.81), and the half-life of trypsin was 9.0 hours (r(2) = 0.68). CONCLUSIONS: The half-lives of bile and trypsin in the rodent aspiration model suggest that the ability to detect aspiration may be limited to a few days post-aspiration. If studies using rats are any indication, it may be most effective to collect BAL samples within the first 24 hours of suspected aspiration events in order to detect aspiration.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".