Input respiratory impedance in mice: comparison between the flow-based and the wavetube method to perform the forced oscillation technique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective and approach: In this study, we estimated the constant phase model (CPM) parameters from the respiratory impedance of male BALB/c mice by performing the forced oscillation technique (FOT) in a control group (n = 8) and in a murine model of asthma (OVA) (n = 10). Then, we compared the results obtained by two different methods, using a commercial equipment (flexiVent-flexiWare 7.X; SCIREQ, Montreal, Canada) (FXV) and a wavetube method equipment (Sly et al 2003 J. Appl. Physiol. 94 1460-6) (WVT). We believe that the results from different methods may not be comparable. First, we compared the results performing a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for the resistance, elastance and tissue damping. MAIN RESULTS: We found statistically significant differences in all CPM parameters, except for resistance, when comparing Control and OVA groups. When comparing devices, we found statistically significant differences in resistance, while differences in elastance were not observed. For tissue damping, the results from WVT were observed to be higher than those from FXV. Finally, when comparing the relative variation between the CPM parameters of the Control and OVA groups in both devices, no significant differences were observed for all parameters. SIGNIFICANCE: We then conclude that this assessment can compensate the effect of using different cannulas. Furthermore, tissue damping differences between groups can be compensated, since bronchoconstrictors were not used. Therefore, we believe that relative variations in the results between groups can be a comparing parameter when using different equipment without bronchoconstrictor administration.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".