A comparison of airway pressures for inflation fixation of developing mouse lungs for stereological analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The morphometric analysis of lung structure using the principles of stereology has emerged as a powerful tool to describe the structural changes in lung architecture that accompany the development of lung disease that is experimentally modelled in adult mice. These stereological principles are now being applied to the study of the evolution of the lung architecture over the course of prenatal and postnatal lung development in mouse neonates and adolescents. The immature lung is structurally and functionally distinct from the adult lung, and has a smaller volume than does the adult lung. These differences have raised concerns about whether the inflation fixation of neonatal mouse lungs with the airway pressure (Paw) used for the inflation fixation of adult mouse lungs may cause distortion of the neonatal mouse lung structure, leading to the generation of artefacts in subsequent analyses. The objective of this study was to examine the impact of a Paw of 10, 20 and 30 cmH2O on the estimation of lung volumes and stereologically assessed parameters that describe the lung structure in developing mouse lungs. The data presented demonstrate that low Paw (10 cmH2O) leads to heterogeneity in the unfolding of alveolar structures within the lungs, and that high Paw (30 cmH2O) leads to an overestimation of the lung volume, and thus, affects the estimation of volume-dependent parameters, such as total alveoli number and gas-exchange surface area. Thus, these data support the use of a Paw of 20 cmH2O for inflation fixation in morphometric studies on neonatal mouse lungs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".