Remote lung injury after experimental intestinal ischemia‐reperfusion in horses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although precise evidence is missing, lung is believed to be a target of remote injury. We addressed this issue as well as any anti‐inflammatory effects of lidocaine in an equine model of intestinal ischemia‐reperfusion (IR). Lungs were collected from non‐anesthetized (n=4) and anesthetized (n=4) control horses and those subjected to IR with administration of either Lactated Ringer's Solution (LRS) or lidocaine (n=6/group). Lungs from control groups had normal histology and lacked inflammation compared to moderate to severe congestion and vascular, perivascular and alveolar neutrophil recruitment in IR horses. Lungs from IR horses had increased TLR4 and TLR9 staining in terminal bronchioles and vascular cells, increased vWF staining and vWF‐positive platelet aggregates in vasculature. IR horses had increase in Mac387‐positive leukocytes and TNFα lung concentrations compared to control (P<0.05). Macrophage numbers were higher in IR horses receiving lidocaine compared to the LRS group (P<0.05). Neutrophil numbers were higher in LRS‐treated IR horses compared to those administered lidocaine (P<0.05). MPO concentration was not different between IR groups. These data show IR‐associated remote lung inflammation and injury in horses, and some amelioration of lung inflammation with lidocaine.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".