Effects of elevated CO2 levels on lung immune response to organic dust and lipopolysaccharide
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Workplaces with elevated organic dust levels such as animal feed barns also commonly have elevated levels of gasses, such as CO 2 . Workers exposed to such complex environments often experience respiratory effects that may be due to a combination of respirable factors. We examined the effects of CO 2 on lung innate immune responses in mice co-exposed to the inflammatory agents lipopolysaccharide (LPS) and organic dust. We evaluated CO 2 levels at the building recommended limit (1000 ppm) as well as the exposure limit (5000 ppm). Mice were nasally instilled with dust extracts or LPS and immediately put into chambers with a constant flow of room air (avg. 430 ppm CO 2 ), 1000 ppm, or 5000 ppm CO 2 enriched air. Results reveal that organic dust exposures tended to show decreased inflammatory responses with 1000 ppm CO 2 and increased responses at 5000 ppm CO 2 . Conversely, LPS with addition of CO 2 as low as 1000 ppm tended to inhibit several inflammatory markers. In most cases saline treated animals showed few changes with CO 2 exposure, though some changes in mRNA levels were present. This shows that CO 2 as low as 1000 ppm CO 2 was capable of altering innate immune responses to both LPS and organic dust extracts, but each response was altered in a different fashion.
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 | 0.000 | 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".