High Doses of Inhaled Nitric Oxide as an Innovative Antimicrobial Strategy for Lung Infections
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the designation of nitric oxide as "Molecule of the Year" in 1992, the scientific and clinical discoveries concerning this biomolecule have been greatly expanding. Currently, therapies enhancing the release of endogenous nitric oxide or the direct delivery of the exogenous compound are recognized as valuable pharmacological treatments in several disorders. In particular, the administration of inhaled nitric oxide is routinely used to treat patients with pulmonary hypertension or refractory hypoxemia. More recently, inhaled nitric oxide has been studied as a promising antimicrobial treatment strategy against a range of pathogens, including resistant bacterial and fungal infections of the respiratory system. Pre-clinical and clinical findings have demonstrated that, at doses greater than 160 ppm, nitric oxide has antimicrobial properties and can be used to kill a broad range of infectious microorganisms. This review focused on the mechanism of action and current evidence from in vitro studies, animal models and human clinical trials of inhaled high-dose nitric oxide as an innovative antimicrobial therapy for lung infections.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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 it