Adverse Heart–Lung Interactions in Ventilator-induced Lung Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: In the original 1974 in vivo study of ventilator-induced lung injury, Webb and Tierney reported that high Vt with zero positive end-expiratory pressure caused overwhelming lung injury, subsequently shown by others to be due to lung shear stress. OBJECTIVES: To reproduce the lung injury and edema examined in the Webb and Tierney study and to investigate the underlying mechanism thereof. METHODS: O). Additional series of experiments (20 min in duration to ensure all animals survived) were studied to assess permeability (n = 4 per group), echocardiography (n = 4 per group), and right and left ventricular pressure (n = 5 and n = 4 per group, respectively). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The original Webb and Tierney results were replicated in terms of lung/body weight ratio (45/0 > 45/10 ≈ 30/0 ≈ 14/0; P < 0.05) and histology. In 45/0, pulmonary edema was overt and rapid, with survival less than 30 minutes. In 45/0 (but not 45/10), there was an increase in microvascular permeability, cyclical abolition of preload, and progressive dilation of the right ventricle. Although left ventricular end-diastolic pressure decreased in 45/10, it increased in 45/0. CONCLUSIONS: In a classic model of ventilator-induced lung injury, high peak pressure (and zero positive end-expiratory pressure) causes respiratory swings (obliteration during inspiration) in right ventricular filling and pulmonary perfusion, ultimately resulting in right ventricular failure and dilation. Pulmonary edema was due to increased permeability, which was augmented by a modest (approximately 40%) increase in hydrostatic pressure. The lung injury and acute cor pulmonale is likely due to pulmonary microvascular injury, the mechanism of which is uncertain, but which may be due to cyclic interruption and exaggeration of pulmonary blood flow.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".