Airway compliance measurements in mouse models of respiratory diseases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The quantification of airway compliance ( Caw) is essential to the study of airway alterations in disease models. However, the required measurements of airway pressure and volume are difficult to acquire in mice. We hypothesized that the inflation limb of full-range pressure-volume (PV) curves could be used to quantify Caw, as it contains a segment where only the airway tree is distended. The study objective was to assess the feasibility of the approach by analysis of full-range PV curves previously collected in three mouse models: an elastase model of emphysema, a genetic model spontaneously developing emphysema (leukotriene C4 synthase knockout; LTC4S-KO), and a bleomycin model of lung fibrosis. Attempts to validate results included Caw change relative to respiratory system compliance (Δ Caw/Δ C), the minute work of breathing (mWOB), and the elastance at 20.5 Hz ( Ers_20.5) from prior respiratory mechanics measurements in the same subjects. Caw was estimated at 3% of total compliance in healthy mice or 2.3 ± 1 μL/cmH2O ( n = 17). The technique detected changes in models of respiratory obstructive and restrictive diseases relative to control mice as well as differences in the two emphysema models studied. The changes in Caw were consistent with those seen in Δ Caw/Δ C, mWOB, or Ers_20.5, with some variations according to the model, as well as with results reported in the literature in humans and mice. Direct Caw measurements in subjects as small as mice could prove useful to further characterize other respiratory disease models associated with airway remodeling or to assess treatment effects.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".