Analysis of the alveolar shape in 3-D
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mechanical forces affect the alveolar shape, depending on location and tissue composition, and vary during the respiratory cycle. This study performs alveolar morphomics in different lobes of human lungs using models generated from three-dimensional (3-D) micro-computed tomography (microCT) images. Cylindrical tissue samples (1.6 cm × 2 cm) were extracted from two nontransplantable donor lungs (one ex-smoker and one smoker, 3 samples per subject) that were air-inflated and frozen solid in liquid nitrogen vapor. Samples were scanned with microCT (11 µm/voxel). Within representative cubic regions of interest (5.5 mm edge length), alveoli were segmented to produce corresponding 3-D models from which quantitative data were obtained. The surface of segmented alveoli (n_alv_total = 23,587) was divided into individual planar surfaces (facets) and angles between facet normals were calculated. Moreover, the number of neighboring alveoli was estimated for every alveolus. In this study, we examined intraindividual differences in alveolar morphology, which were reproducible in the lungs of two subjects. The main aspects are higher mean alveolar volumes (v_alv: 6.64 × 106 and 6.63 × 106 µm3 vs. 5.78 × 106 and 6.29 × 106 µm3) and surface sizes (s_alv: 0.19 and 0.18 mm2 vs. 0.17 mm2 in both lower lobes) in both upper lung lobes compared with the lower lobes. An increasing number of facets (f_alv) from top to bottom (12 and 14 in the upper lobes; 14 and 15 in the lower lobes), as well as a decreasing number of alveolar neighbors (nei_alv: 9 and 8 in the upper lobes; 8 and 7 in the lower lobes) from the upper lobes to the lower lobes were observed. We could observe an increasing ratio of alveolar entrance size to the surface size of the alveoli from top to bottom (S_ratio_alv: 0.71 and 0.64 in the upper lobes, 0.73 and 0.70 in the lower lobes). The angles between facet normals (ang_alv) were larger in the upper lobes (67.72° and 62.44°) of both lungs than in the lower lobes (66.19° and 61.30°). By using this new approach of analyzing alveolar 3-D data, which enables the estimation of facet, neighbor, and shape characteristics, we aimed to establish the baseline measures for in-depth studies of mechanical conditions and morphology.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".