CT anatomy of the lungs, bronchi and trachea in the Mature Guinea pig ( <i>cavia porcellus</i> )
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Since there is no complete study of topographic features of thorax structures in guinea pigs, this study strives to define the exact topographic features of thorax structures. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to provide comprehensive topographic information about the location of the trachea, bronchi, lungs and heart inside the thoracic cavity in guinea pig, as well as to study the features of these structures, their proximity to other organs and comparative anatomical studies with CT scan images in living samples. METHODS: Ten adult male and healthy guinea pigs were selected. CT scan transverse images were taken. The morphometric parameters of the lungs, bronchi, trachea, heart, thoracic cavity and abdominal cavity were measured. RESULTS: In these studies, the position of organs such as the trachea, lungs and heart were monitored, and specified descriptions of CT scan images and anatomical observations were obtained. We realised that the heart in this animal was not inclined to the left, and due to the equal size of the lungs, the heart was almost on the midline. According to the measurements, 20.05% of the ventral cavity volume was thoracic cavity and 79.95% was abdominal cavity. CONCLUSIONS: According to studies on guinea pigs, the right and left have the volume, and the heart is located between them on the midline without a tendency to the left. It seems that one of the reasons for the reluctance of the heart to the left and its placement on the midline in the guinea pig is that the volume of the two lungs is equal. In the case of guinea pigs, both numerical parameters are smaller than rabbits', but close to it. One of the most important factors in this study is that none of the animals were euthanised, and all of samples were alive after our study.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".