MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The protective effects of glutamine in a rat model of ventilator-induced lung injury.

2014· article· en· W54402553 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Chin-Ming Chen, Kuo-Chen Cheng, Chien‐Feng Li, Haibo Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicClinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsARDSMedicineTidal volumeLungContext (archaeology)Mechanical ventilationLipopolysaccharideVentilation (architecture)AnesthesiaGlutamineInflammationPlaceboRespiratory ratePharmacologyRespiratory systemInternal medicineBlood pressurePathologyHeart rateBiologyAmino acid

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The mortality rate of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is still high despite the use of protective ventilatory strategies. We sought to examine the pharmacological effects of glutamine (GLN) in a two-hit model of endotoxin-induced inflammation followed by ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI). We hypothesized that the administration of GLN ameliorates the VILI. METHODS: Sprague-Dawley rats were anesthetized and given lipopolysaccharide (LPS) intratracheally as a first hit to induce lung inflammation, followed 24 h later by a second hit of mechanical ventilation (MV) with either low tidal volume (6 mL/kg) with 5 cmH2O of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) or high tidal volume (22 mL/kg) with zero PEEP for 4 h. GLN or lactated Ringer's solution as the placebo was administered intravenously 15 min prior to MV. RESULTS: In the LPS-challenged rats ventilated with high tidal volume, the treatment with GLN improved lung injury indices, lung mechanics and cytokine responses compared with the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: The administration of GLN given immediately prior to MV may be beneficial in the context of reducing VILI.

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)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicClinical Nutrition and GastroenterologyFrench-language works237,207