Back to the future: re-establishing guinea pig<i>in vivo</i>asthma models
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research using animal models of asthma is currently dominated by mouse models. This has been driven by the comprehensive knowledge on inflammatory and immune reactions in mice, as well as tools to produce genetically modified mice. Many of the identified therapeutic targets influencing airway hyper-responsiveness and inflammation in mouse models, have however been disappointing when tested clinically in asthma. It is therefore a great need for new animal models that more closely resemble human asthma. The guinea pig has for decades been used in asthma research and a comprehensive table of different protocols for asthma models is presented. The studies have primarily been focused on the pharmacological aspects of the disease, where the guinea pig undoubtedly is superior to mice. Further reasons are the anatomical and physiological similarities between human and guinea pig airways compared with that of the mouse, especially with respect to airway branching, neurophysiology, pulmonary circulation and smooth muscle distribution, as well as mast cell localization and mediator secretion. Lack of reagents and specific molecular tools to study inflammatory and immunological reactions in the guinea pig has however greatly diminished its use in asthma research. The aim in this position paper is to review and summarize what we know about different aspects of the use of guinea pig in vivo models for asthma research. The associated aim is to highlight the unmet needs that have to be addressed in the future.
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.
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
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 it