A 4-Week Model of House Dust Mite (HDM) Induced Allergic Airways Inflammation with Airway Remodeling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Animal models of allergic airways inflammation are useful tools in studying the pathogenesis of asthma and potential therapeutic interventions. The different allergic airways inflammation models available to date employ varying doses, frequency, duration and types of allergen, which lead to the development of different features of asthma; showing varying degrees of airways inflammation and hyper-responsiveness (AHR) and airways remodeling. Models that also exhibit airway remodeling, a key feature of asthma, in addition to AHR and airway inflammation typically require 5-12 weeks to develop. In this report, we describe a 4-week mouse model of house dust mite (HDM)-induced allergic airways inflammation, and compare the phenotypic features of two different doses of HDM exposures (10 µg and 25 µg) for 5 days/week with a well-characterized 8-week chronic HDM model. We found that 4 weeks of intranasal HDM (25 µg in 35 µl saline; 5 days/week) resulted in AHR, airway inflammation and airway remodeling that were comparable to the 8-week model. We conclude that this new 4-week HDM model is another useful tool in studies of human asthma that offers advantages of shorter duration for development and decreased costs when compared to other models that require longer durations of exposure (5-12 weeks) to develop.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".