ArticleExperimental lung research2015
Comparison of CT-derived ventilation maps with deposition patterns of inhaled microspheres in rats.
Article in Experimental lung research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Real-time single-particle imaging of functional lungs reveals mosaic-like patterns of aerosol deposition in alveoli.Nature biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- Quantitative Imaging Metrics for the Assessment of Pulmonary Pathophysiology: An Official American Thoracic Society and Fleischner Society Joint Workshop Report.Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2023Article
- Article
- Effect of MDI Actuation Timing on Inhalation Dosimetry in a Human Respiratory Tract Model.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Ventilation/Perfusion Relationships and Gas Exchange: Measurement Approaches.Comprehensive Physiology · 2020Review
- The VAMPIRE challenge: A multi-institutional validation study of CT ventilation imaging.Medical physics · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeComputer models for inhalation toxicology and drug-aerosol delivery studies rely on ventilation pattern inputs for predictions of particle deposition and vapor uptake. However, changes in lung mechanics due to disease can impact airflow dynamics and model results. It has been demonstrated that non-invasive, in vivo, 4DCT imaging (3D imaging at multiple time points in the breathing cycle) can be used to map heterogeneities in ventilation patterns under healthy and disease conditions. The purpose of this study was to validate ventilation patterns measured from CT imaging by exposing the same rats to an aerosol of fluorescent microspheres (FMS) and examining particle deposition patterns using cryomicrotome imaging. MATERIALS AND
methodsSix male Sprague-Dawley rats were intratracheally instilled with elastase to a single lobe to induce a heterogeneous disease. After four weeks, rats were imaged over the breathing cycle by CT then immediately exposed to an aerosol of ∼ 1 μm FMS for ∼ 5 minutes. After the exposure, the lungs were excised and prepared for cryomicrotome imaging, where a 3D image of FMS deposition was acquired using serial sectioning. Cryomicrotome images were spatially registered to match the live CT images to facilitate direct quantitative comparisons of FMS signal intensity with the CT-based ventilation maps.
resultsComparisons of fractional ventilation in contiguous, non-overlapping, 3D regions between CT-based ventilation maps and FMS images showed strong correlations in fractional ventilation (r = 0.888, p < 0.0001).
conclusionWe conclude that ventilation maps derived from CT imaging are predictive of the 1 μm aerosol deposition used in ventilation-perfusion heterogeneity inhalation studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.