Vascular and ventilatory mechanical responses in three different stages of pulmonary development in the rabbit model of congenital diaphragmatic hernia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose: To evaluate the vascular ventilatory response in different stages of lung development and to compare them to the neonates with congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH) in a rabbit model. Methods: New Zealand rabbits were divided into 8 groups (n=5): E25, E27, E30, and CDH. All groups were ventilated on a FlexiVent (Scireq, Montreal, QC, Canada), compounding the other 4 groups. The CDH surgery was performed at E25 and the harvest at E30. Dynamic compliance (CRS), dynamic elastance (ERS) and dynamic resistance (RRS) were measured every 4 min/24 min. Median wall thickness (MWT) and airspace were measured. ANOVA Bonferroni tests were used to perform statistical analysis. Significance was considered when p<0.05. Results: CRS was higher in E30 compared to all other groups (p<0.05). CRS and RRS of CDH and E27 were similar and were higher in E25 (p<0.05). MWT was decreased according to the gestational age, was increased in E27V and E30V (p<0.05) and decreased in CDHV (p<0.05), airspace was decreased in E25 and increased in all ventilated groups (p<0.05). Conclusions: The ventilation response of congenital diaphragmatic hernia is like the pseudoglandular stage of the lung development. These findings add information about the physiology of pulmonary ventilation in CDH.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".