Gene Expression Analysis to Assess the Relevance of Rodent Models to Human Lung Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The relevance of animal models to human diseases is an area of intense scientific debate. The degree to which mouse models of lung injury recapitulate human lung injury has never been assessed. Integrating data from both human and animal expression studies allows for increased statistical power and identification of conserved differential gene expression across organisms and conditions. We sought comprehensive integration of gene expression data in experimental acute lung injury (ALI) in rodents compared with humans. We performed two separate gene expression multicohort analyses to determine differential gene expression in experimental animal and human lung injury. We used correlational and pathway analyses combined with external in vitro gene expression data to identify both potential drivers of underlying inflammation and therapeutic drug candidates. We identified 21 animal lung tissue datasets and three human lung injury bronchoalveolar lavage datasets. We show that the metasignatures of animal and human experimental ALI are significantly correlated despite these widely varying experimental conditions. The gene expression changes among mice and rats across diverse injury models (ozone, ventilator-induced lung injury, LPS) are significantly correlated with human models of lung injury (Pearson r = 0.33–0.45, P < 1E−16). Neutrophil signatures are enriched in both animal and human lung injury. Predicted therapeutic targets, peptide ligand signatures, and pathway analyses are also all highly overlapping. Gene expression changes are similar in animal and human experimental ALI, and provide several physiologic and therapeutic insights to the disease.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".