Intranasal versus intratracheal exposure to lipopolysaccharides in a murine model of acute respiratory distress syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to frequent and often severe lung affections caused by COVID-19, murine models of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) are increasingly used in experimental lung research. The one induced by a single lipopolysaccharide (LPS) exposure is practical. However, whether it is preferable to administer LPS intranasally or intratracheally remains an open question. Herein, female C57Bl/6 J mice were exposed intranasally or intratracheally to one dose of either saline or 3 mg/kg of LPS. They were studied 24 h later. The groups treated with LPS, either intranasally or intratracheally, exhibited a pronounced neutrophilic inflammation, signs of lung tissue damage and protein extravasation into the alveoli, and mild lung dysfunction. The magnitude of the response was generally not different between groups exposed intranasally versus intratracheally. However, the variability of some the responses was smaller in the LPS-treated groups exposed intranasally versus intratracheally. Notably, the saline-treated mice exposed intratracheally demonstrated a mild neutrophilic inflammation and alterations of the airway epithelium. We conclude that an intranasal exposure is as effective as an intratracheal exposure in a murine model of ARDS induced by LPS. Additionally, the groups exposed intranasally demonstrated less variability in the responses to LPS and less complications associated with the sham procedure.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".