Inflammatory Cellular Response to Mechanical Ventilation in Elastase-Induced Experimental Emphysema: Role of Preexisting Alveolar Macrophages Infiltration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An excessive pulmonary inflammatory response could explain the poor prognosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients submitted to invasive mechanical ventilation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the response to normal tidal volume mechanical ventilation in an elastase-induced murine model of pulmonary emphysema. In this model, two time points, associated with different levels of lung inflammation but similar lung destruction, were analyzed. C57BL/6 mice received a tracheal instillation of 5 IU of porcine pancreatic elastase (Elastase mice) or the same volume of saline (Saline mice). Fourteen (D14) and 21 (D21) days after instillation, mice were anesthetized, intubated, and either mechanically ventilated (MV) or maintained on spontaneous ventilation (SV) during two hours. As compared with Saline mice, Elastase mice showed a similarly increased mean chord length and pulmonary compliance at D14 and D21, while bronchoalveolar lavage cellularity was comparable between groups. Lung mechanics was similarly altered during mechanical ventilation in Elastase and Saline mice. Activated alveolar macrophages CD11bmid were present in lung parenchyma in both Elastase SV mice and Elastase MV mice at D14 but were absent at D21 and in Saline mice, indicating an inflammatory state with elastase at D14 only. At D14, Elastase MV mice showed a significant increase in percentage of neutrophils in total lung, as compared with Elastase SV mice. Furthermore, alveolar macrophages of Elastase MV mice at D14 overexpressed Gr1, and monocytes showed a trend to overexpression of CD62L, compared with Elastase SV mice. In an elastase-induced model of pulmonary emphysema, normal tidal volume mechanical ventilation may produce an increase in the proportion of pulmonary neutrophils, and an activation of alveolar macrophages and pulmonary monocytes. This response seems to be observed only when the emphysema model shows an underlying inflammation (D14), reflected by the presence of activated alveolar macrophages CD11bmid.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".