2003
DOI: 10.1016/s0021-9290(03)00179-9
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Three-dimensional visualization and morphometry of small airways from microfocal X-ray computed tomography

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

3
46
1

Year Published

2006
2006
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 46 publications
(50 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
3
46
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Intrasubject variance of NG to reach around 0.35 mm is less than 1. Figure 11 compares this and previous studies (Raabe et al, 1976;Sera et al, 2003). Our values of airway diameter vs. generation number were closest to Raabe et al (1976), but diameter was a little larger than Raabe for distal generations.…”
Section: Correlation Between Geometry Parameterssupporting
confidence: 86%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…Intrasubject variance of NG to reach around 0.35 mm is less than 1. Figure 11 compares this and previous studies (Raabe et al, 1976;Sera et al, 2003). Our values of airway diameter vs. generation number were closest to Raabe et al (1976), but diameter was a little larger than Raabe for distal generations.…”
Section: Correlation Between Geometry Parameterssupporting
confidence: 86%
“…Our values of airway diameter vs. generation number were closest to Raabe et al (1976), but diameter was a little larger than Raabe for distal generations. Sera et al (2003) analyzed small airways of male Wister rats using CT images finding diameters clearly smaller than other observations (Fig. 11a).…”
Section: Correlation Between Geometry Parametersmentioning
confidence: 69%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…3). The corresponding value of E (0.7 cmH 2O) is low compared with values in the literature for dog (10) and rat (51,52) airways, from which we estimate E Ϸ 6 and 10 cmH 2O, respectively; reliable estimates for T are harder to determine, requiring us to exercise caution in interpreting results. The cell layer is substantially thinner than the airway radius (we assume the epithelial thickness Hc is of the order of 1 m), so that terms in the cell model of magnitude (where ϭ Hc/R1) or smaller are neglected.…”
Section: Methodscontrasting
confidence: 79%