MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Effects of Intrauterine Growth Restriction (IUGR) on the Surfactant System in Response to Sepsis

2018· article· en· W3175889776 on OpenAlexaff
Lynda McCaig, Reza Khazaee, Zhong Huang, Daniel B. Hardy, Cory Yamashita, Ruud A. W. Veldhuizen

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsARDSIntrauterine growth restrictionMedicineSepsisRespiratory distressLungPulmonary complianceSalineShock (circulatory)Septic shockInternal medicineEndocrinologyAnesthesiaPregnancyFetusBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is defined as severe lung dysfunction. The lung impairments in ARDS result, in part, from alterations to pulmonary surfactant; a lipid‐protein mixture coating the inside of the lung that increases the lung compliance during respiration. The most common cause of ARDS is sepsis and due to a lack of effective pharmacological therapies the mortality associated with this condition is over 30%. Our research focuses on risk factors that indicate a susceptibility to the disease, which could provide new and early therapeutic options. One such potential risk factor is intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR). IUGR is defined by a low birth weight and contributes to a variety of adult‐onset diseases with different severities between males and females. There are underlying shared mechanisms between these IUGR‐induced diseases and ARDS, such as systemic inflammation. This study investigates the IUGR effect on surfactant system in response to sepsis in adult males and females. It was hypothesized that IUGR is a risk factor for developing ARDS through surfactant alterations with different outcomes between adult males and females. Methods IUGR was induced in pregnant rat model via a low protein diet. At postnatal day 130, control and IUGR rats were randomly assigned into sham and septic groups. Rats were anesthetized and received either an intraperitoneal injection (IP) of saline or fecal slurry solution (1m/100g at 0.5g/ml). Following injection, respiratory rate and the animal activity were monitored for 6hr. After 6hr, animals were sacrificed (sodium pentobarbital IP injection) and arterial blood and the surfactant were taken for cytokine and surfactant analysis. Some non‐lavaged lungs were fixed for histological assessments. Results IUGR was confirmed by significant decrease in birth weight in both male and female offspring. Septicemia was confirmed by culturing bacteria from the blood samples, while cultures from sham animals were negative. After 6hr, respiratory rates significantly decreased in septic male and female IUGRs compare to sham male and female IUGRs at time zero (before IP) ( p <0.01). Surfactant analysis showed significant reduction in the total surfactant phospholipid content in septic male IUGRs compared to shams ( p <0.05) with no changes in surfactant phospholipid content between female septic IUGRs and shams. Control groups demonstrated no changes in surfactant content between septics and shams in either sexes. Discussion Changes in surfactant pools occurring between male IUGR septic animals compared to shams without changes in control animals, support our hypothesis that IUGR is a risk factor for developing surfactant impairments. Also, the results indicate that the effect is different between males and females. Reduction of surfactant content in septic IUGR males could potentially cause lower lung compliance, alter lung function and therefore, developing or exacerbating lung injury during the development of ARDS. To further study the IUGR effect on the surfactant and evaluate its role as an ARDS risk factor, future experiments will assess the surfactant biophysical properties and lung histology. This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2018 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal .

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.303 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research→French-language works237,207→