MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2811265246 · doi:10.3791/57672

Murine Oropharyngeal Aspiration Model of Ventilator-associated and Hospital-acquired Bacterial Pneumonia

2018· article· en· W2811265246 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Travis B. Nielsen, Jun Yan, Brian Luna, Brad Spellberg

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Visualized Experiments · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPneumonia and Respiratory Infections
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesNational Institutes of HealthHamilton Health Sciences Foundation
KeywordsPneumoniaMedicinePathogenesisBacterial pneumoniaSinusitisLungAspiration pneumoniaImmunologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Murine infection models are critical for understanding disease pathogenesis and testing the efficacy of novel therapeutics designed to combat causative pathogens. Infectious pneumonia is among the most common infections presented by patients in the clinic and thus warrants an appropriate in vivo model. Typical pneumonia models use intranasal inoculation, which deposits excessive organisms outside the lung, causing off-target complications and symptoms, such as sinusitis, gastritis, enteritis, physical trauma, or microparticle misting to mimic aerosol spread more typical of viral, tuberculous, or fungal pneumonia. These models do not accurately reflect the pathogenesis of typical community- or healthcare-acquired bacterial pneumonia. In contrast, this murine model of oropharyngeal aspiration pneumonia mimics the droplet route in healthcare-acquired pneumonia. Inoculating 50 µL of the bacteria suspension into the oropharynx of anesthetized mice causes reflexive aspiration, which results in pneumonia. With this model, one can examine the pathogenesis of pneumonia-causing pathogens and new treatments to combat these diseases.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.362 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations35
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Visualized ExperimentsSame topicPneumonia and Respiratory InfectionsFrench-language works237,207