Pulmonary effects of intravenous atropine induce ventilation perfusion mismatch
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Atropine is used for a number of medical conditions, predominantly for its cardiovascular effects. Cholinergic nerves that innervate pulmonary smooth muscle, glands, and vasculature may be affected by anticholinergic medications. We hypothesized that atropine causes alterations in pulmonary gas exchange. We conducted a prospective interventional study with detailed physiologic recordings in anesthetized, spontaneously breathing rats (n = 8). Animals breathing a normoxic gas mixture titrated to a partial arterial pressure of oxygen of 110-120 were exposed to an escalating dose of intravenous atropine (0.001, 0.01, 0.1, 5.0, and 20.0 mg/kg body mass). Arterial blood gas measurements were recorded every 2 min (×5) at baseline, and following each of the 5 doses of atropine. In addition, the animals regional pulmonary blood flow was measured using neutron-activated microspheres. Oxygenation decreased immediately following intravenous administration of atropine, despite a small increase in the volume of inspired air with no change in respiratory rate. Arterial blood gas analysis showed an increase in pulmonary dysfunction, characterized by a widening of the alveolar-arteriole gradient (p < 0.003 all groups except for the lowest dose of atropine). The microsphere data demonstrates an abrupt and marked heterogeneity of pulmonary blood flow following atropine treatment. In conclusion, atropine was found to decrease pulmonary gas exchange in a dose-dependent fashion in this rat model.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".