A single breath of nitric oxide does not alter pulmonary perfusion pressure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
New Findings What is the central question of this study? Is the amount of inhaled nitric oxide (NO) used during a diffusing capacity for inhaled NO manoeuvre sufficient to reduce pulmonary artery systolic pressure (PASP)? What is the main finding and its importance? These findings suggest that a single breath of inhaled NO does not change PASP, and combined with previous correlational work, further validates the use of the diffusing capacity for NO manoeuvre as a technique to determine pulmonary capillary blood volume and membrane diffusing capacity. Abstract The measurement of diffusing capacity is an important pulmonary function test to evaluate gas exchange. Using both carbon monoxide and nitric oxide (NO), the diffusing capacity for nitric oxide (DL,NO) technique allows for the partitioning of capillary blood volume and membrane diffusing capacity. However, inhaled NO is known to dilate pulmonary arterioles in both health and disease and therefore could alter the outcomes that the DL,NO technique aims to quantify. The purpose of the study was to determine if a DL,NO manoeuvre alters pulmonary perfusion pressure. Nine participants completed 12 simulated 10‐s breath‐hold DL,NO manoeuvres (n = 6 placebo inhalations and n = 6 with 40 ppm NO; order randomized) during which tricuspid regurgitant jet velocity was recorded continuously using Doppler ultrasound to estimate pulmonary artery systolic pressure (PASP) as a surrogate for pulmonary perfusion pressure. The PASP was not different between the placebo and NO conditions (P = 0.742). These data indicate that a single DL,NO manoeuvre does not alter PASP and therefore would not be expected to acutely alter pulmonary capillary blood volume or membrane diffusing capacity.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".