Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 320

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Noninvasive and Invasive Pulmonary Function in Mouse Models of Obstructive and Restrictive Respiratory Diseases

Vanoirbeek, Jeroen A. J., Rinaldi, Manuela, De Vooght, Vanessa, Haenen, Steven, Bobic, Sonja, Gayan-Ramirez, Ghislaine, Hoet, Peter H. M., Verbeken, Erik, Decramer, Marc, Nemery, Benoit, Janssens, Wim·2010·American Journal of Respiratory Cell and Molecular Biology

Abstract

Pulmonary function analysis is an important tool in the evaluation of mouse respiratory disease models, but much controversy still exists on the validity of some tests. Most commonly used pulmonary function variables of humans are not routinely applied in mice, and the question of which pulmonary function is optimal for the monitoring of a particular disease model remains largely unanswered. Our study aimed to delineate the potential and restrictions of existing pulmonary function techniques in different respiratory disease models, and to determine some common variables between humans and mice. A noninvasive (unrestrained plethysmography) and two invasive pulmonary function devices (forced maneuvers system from Buxco Research Systems [Wilmington, NC] and forced oscillation technique from SCIREQ [Montreal, PQ, Canada]) were evaluated in well-established models of asthma (protein and chemical induced): a model of elastase-induced pulmonary emphysema, and a model of bleomycin-induced pulmonary fibrosis. In contrast to noninvasive tests, both invasive techniques were efficacious for the quantification of parenchymal disease via changes in functional residual capacity, total lung capacity, vital capacity, and compliance of the respiratory system. Airflow obstruction and airflow limitation at baseline were only present in emphysema, but could be significantly induced after methacholine challenge in mice with asthma, which correlated best with an increase of respiratory resistance. Invasive pulmonary functions allow distinction between respiratory diseases in mice by clinically relevant variables, and should become standard in the functional evaluation of pathological disease models.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1165/rcmb.2008-0487oc

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 33 references

Cited by

See all 320

Metadata

Authors
Vanoirbeek, J. A. J., Rinaldi, M., De Vooght, V., Haenen, S., Bobic, S., Gayan-Ramirez, G., Hoet, P. H. M., Verbeken, E., Decramer, M., Nemery, B., & Janssens, W.
Venue
American Journal of Respiratory Cell and Molecular Biology
Published
2010-01
Volume
42
Issue
1
Pages
96-104
ISSN
  • 1044-1549 (ISSN-L)
  • 1535-4989
OpenAlex
W2075982355
Cited by
320
References
33
FWCI
17.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Noninvasive and Invasive Pulmonary Function in Mouse Models of Obstructive and Restrictive Respiratory Diseases. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1165/rcmb.2008-0487oc
The paper
Vanoirbeek, J. A. J., Rinaldi, M., De Vooght, V., Haenen, S., Bobic, S., Gayan-Ramirez, G., Hoet, P. H. M., Verbeken, E., Decramer, M., Nemery, B., & Janssens, W. (2010). Noninvasive and Invasive Pulmonary Function in Mouse Models of Obstructive and Restrictive Respiratory Diseases. American Journal of Respiratory Cell and Molecular Biology. https://doi.org/10.1165/rcmb.2008-0487oc

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.