Figure S2 The results of the pulmonary function testing in sham and PAB rats at P14.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Method: Pulmonary Function Determination Pulmonary function analysis was conducted at P14 to evaluate lung injury as previously described [ doi: 10.1165/rcmb.2010-0226OC, doi: 10.1152/ajplung.00030.2013 ]. Briefly, rats were anesthetized by an intraperitoneal injection of 3% pentobarbital sodium (0.1 mL/100 g). After confirming the adequacy of anesthesia by testing the toe pinch reflex, their tracheas were dissected bluntly, opened, and cannulated with an 18-gauge tracheotomy tube. The rats were then connected to a ventilator (FlexiVent; SCIREQ, Montreal, Canada) and ventilated at a rate of 150 breaths/min, with a tidal volume of 10 mL/kg and a positive end-expiratory pressure of 3 cmH2O. The deep inhalation was used to set the baseline. Pulmonary resistance, compliance, and elastance were recorded six times continuously, and an average value of them was taken to evaluate the lung injury. Figure legend: Figure S2 The results of the pulmonary function testing in sham and PAB rats at P14. A. The respiratory system resistance of sham and PAB rats. B. The respiratory system complaince of sham and PAB rats. C. The respiratory system elastance of sham and PAB rats.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.196 | 0.035 |
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".