Lung stiffness of C57BL/6 versus BALB/c mice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study was undertaken to determine whether a smaller lung volume or a stiffer lung tissue accounts for the greater lung elastance of C57BL/6 than BALB/c mice. The mechanical properties of the respiratory system and lung volumes were measured with the flexiVent and compared between male C57BL/6 and BALB/c mice (n = 9). The size of the excised lung was also measured by volume liquid displacement. One lobe was then subjected to sinusoidal strains in vitro to directly assess the mechanical properties of the lung tissue, and another one was used to quantify the content of hydroxyproline. In vivo elastance was markedly greater in C57BL/6 than BALB/c mice based on 5 different readouts. For example, respiratory system elastance was 24.5 ± 1.7 vs. 21.5 ± 2.4 cmH 2 O/mL in C57BL/6 and BALB/c mice, respectively (p = 0.007). This was not due to a different lung volume measured by displaced liquid volume. On the isolated lobes, both elastance and the hydroxyproline content were significantly greater in C57BL/6 than BALB/c mice. These results suggest that the lung elastance of C57BL/6 mice is greater than BALB/c mice not because of a smaller lung volume but because of a stiffer lung tissue due to a greater content of collagen.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".