MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

A Lipidomic Approach to Assess the Impact of One-lung Ventilation on Lipid-mediated Inflammation During Lung Surgery in a Porcine Model

2025· article· en· W4410273392 on OpenAlexaff
Dagem Yilma Chernet, Simone C. da Silva Rosa, Evan Gauvin, D. Mangat, Catherine Giffin, Jay D. Kormish, Martha Hinton, Shyamala Dakshinamurti, Ruth M. Graham, Amir Ravandi, Christopher D. Pascoe, Biniam Kidane

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLungInflammationVentilation (architecture)Mechanical ventilationIntensive care medicinePathologyImmunologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract RATIONALE: Lung surgery is curative treatment for early-stage lung cancer. To facilitate the surgery, the operated lung is deflated while all the mechanical ventilation is delivered through the contralateral single-lung; this is called one-lung ventilation (OLV). To maintain adequate oxygenation while avoiding injurious high volumes and pressures, higher fraction of inspired oxygen (hyperoxia) is often used during OLV. However, the trade-offs of using hyperoxia during OLV have not yet been fully elucidated. Therefore, we hypothesized that hyperoxia during OLV increases lipid-inflammatory mediators, eliciting inflammatory response post-OLV. METHODS: We developed an OLV-surgery porcine model (n=15) exposed to lung-protective ventilation[asterisk] (LPV), injurious mechanical ventilation[asterisk][asterisk] (IMV), and hyperoxia[asterisk][asterisk][asterisk], in context of a left upper lobectomy surgery. Bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) from the ventilated lung and arterial plasma samples were collected before and after OLV to assess its local and systemic impact, respectively. Plasma samples underwent untargeted liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry to measure lipids at the systemic level. Top significant lipids were enriched in a pathway analysis to predict major signalling cascades. To validate the lipidomic results, BALF and plasma samples were analyzed with a multiplex cytokine assay to compare local and systemic inflammatory cytokine levels. (Significant results: p-value ≤ 0.05, fold change ≥ 2). RESULTS: At the systemic level, differential abundance analysis of plasma lipids revealed significant increase of lysophosphatidylcholine, lysophosphatidylethanolamine, linoleoyl carnitine, phosphatidylserine and free-fatty acids in hyperoxia group post-versus pre-OLV. Conversely, diacylglycerides, triacylglycerides, and linoleoyl carnitine were upregulated in IMV group. Pathway analysis of these lipids revealed inflammatory mediator regulation of transient receptor potential channels as a major pathway upregulated in hyperoxia and IMV groups (false discovery rates 6.52E-06 and 8.48E-11, respectively). Consistent with our hypothesis, localized cytokine analysis in BALF revealed an upregulation of interleukin (IL)-8 and IL-1RA in hyperoxia group, and IL-8, IL-6, IL-1α, and IL-1β in IMV group. However, systemically, no significant cytokine changes were observed in the hyperoxia group, while IL-6 was upregulated in IMV group. There were no significant changes in lipidomics or cytokines within the LPV group. CONCLUSION: Collectively, plasma lipidomic findings showed upregulation of inflammatory-mediator lipids post-OLV in both hyperoxia and IMV groups. Next, the inflammatory mediation of these lipids was validated by cytokine analysis both locally in the lung and systemically. This result confirms our hypothesis that hyperoxia impacts lipid metabolism and elicits inflammatory response post-OLV. This study presents a promising direction in targeting lipids that trigger inflammation to mitigate hyperoxia-induced 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine→Same topicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms→French-language works237,207→