MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366748245 · doi:10.1016/j.jciso.2023.100085

Biophysical investigation of vape additives with complex lung surfactant model systems and physiological surfactant extracts

2023· article· en· W4366748245 on OpenAlexafffund
Nicolas Van Bavel, Patrick Lai, Matthias Amrein, Elmar J. Prenner

Bibliographic record

VenueJCIS Open · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicSurfactants and Colloidal Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPulmonary surfactantLungChemistryChemical engineeringMedicineInternal medicineBiochemistryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Selected vape additives, vitamin E acetate and CBD, are suspected agents in pathology of vape related lung illnesses. The lipophilic nature of these molecules allow them to partition into lung surfactant and disrupt proper function. Such dysfunction can lead to respiratory distress and hypoxemia, two common symptoms of this new class of lung injury. Lung surfactant models were formed by depositing lipids at the air-water interface on a Langmuir-Blodgett trough. Surface pressure-area isotherms were conducted for lipid-additive systems to determine changes in lipid packing, film elasticity, and film stability, while Brewster angle microscopy was used to visualize lateral film organization. Vape additives were found to interfere with proper lipid packing, inducing fluidization throughout the lipid films. Additionally, this hindered the formation of lipid condensed domains. Such structures are necessary for surfactant protein anchoring in order to facilitate the formation of multilayers. In complex model systems, this vital processes was significantly impaired, namely by vitamin e acetate. These data suggest a vape additive induced dysfunction of lipid films which may be involved in the pathology of vape-related lung injury.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.925
Threshold uncertainty score0.756

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.090
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.203 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJCIS OpenSame topicSurfactants and Colloidal SystemsFrench-language works237,207