MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4406614781 · doi:10.1113/ep092490

Are we prematurely predicting acute mountain sickness?

2025· article· en· W4406614781 sur OpenAlexafffund
Julian C. Bommarito, Michael M. Tymko

Notice bibliographique

RevueExperimental Physiology · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
ThématiqueHigh Altitude and Hypoxia
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Guelph
Organismes subventionnairesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Mots-clésMedicineIntensive care medicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Acute mountain sickness (AMS) commonly affects individuals ascending to altitudes above ∼2500 m, and is characterized by the presence of headache, along with other symptoms such as gastrointestinal distress, dizziness/light-headedness, and general fatigue and weakness. Healthy adults born preterm (<37 weeks of gestation) may be at greater risk for AMS due to differences in pulmonary function and respiratory loop gain (Bates et al., 2014) and have a higher prevalence of sleep-disordered breathing compared to their term born healthy counterparts (Crump et al., 2019). Predicting the occurrence of AMS in individuals is often regarded as the ‘holy grail’ of high-altitude research. Among the potential predictors, nocturnal S p O 2 ${{S}_{{\mathrm{p}}{{{\mathrm{O}}}_2}}}$ stands out as the most promising. A recent study by Joyce et al. (2024) tested 18 healthy adults (seven females and 11 males; 36 ± 16 years) ascending to 4800 m altitude over 12 days. AMS was assessed through the Lake Louise Scoring Questionnaire each morning, and nocturnal S p O 2 ${{S}_{{\mathrm{p}}{{{\mathrm{O}}}_2}}}$ was continuously recorded at 3300, 3850 and 4800 m. The authors found that overnight S p O 2 ${{S}_{{\mathrm{p}}{{{\mathrm{O}}}_2}}}$ at 3850 and 4800 m was moderately correlated (r2 = 0.34 and 0.43, respectively) with AMS scores the morning after arrival at 4800 m. In this issue of Experimental Physiology, Narang et al. (2025) investigated the relationship between nocturnal S p O 2 ${{S}_{{\mathrm{p}}{{{\mathrm{O}}}_2}}}$ and AMS in individuals born full term versus preterm. In this well-designed study, the authors recruited 24 young, healthy adult males: 12 born at term and 12 born very preterm (gestational age ≤32 weeks and gestational mass ≤1500 g), matched for age, body mass index, V ̇ O 2 peak ${{\dot{V}}_{{{{\mathrm{O}}}_2}{\mathrm{peak}}}}$ , and pulmonary function (i.e., FVC, FEV1, DLCO, KCO and alveolar volume). Participants were exposed to normobaric hypoxia for ∼16–17 h (equivalent to ∼4200 m). The primary outcome was to compare nocturnal S p O 2 ${{S}_{{\mathrm{p}}{{{\mathrm{O}}}_2}}}$ metrics, which measure the adjustments of oxygen saturation levels overnight (i.e., the mean, minimum and morning S p O 2 ${{S}_{{\mathrm{p}}{{{\mathrm{O}}}_2}}}$ , proportion of time S p O 2 ${{S}_{{\mathrm{p}}{{{\mathrm{O}}}_2}}}$ was <80% (TST80), difference in mean S p O 2 ${{S}_{{\mathrm{p}}{{{\mathrm{O}}}_2}}}$ between the two halves of the night (∆ S p O 2 ${{S}_{{\mathrm{p}}{{{\mathrm{O}}}_2}}}$ ), mean S p O 2 ${{S}_{{\mathrm{p}}{{{\mathrm{O}}}_2}}}$ of the final nocturnal hour, number and duration of desaturations, oxygen desaturation index, and hypoxic burden) between full-term and preterm participant groups during a night in normobaric hypoxia. The secondary outcome was to determine whether nocturnal S p O 2 ${{S}_{{\mathrm{p}}{{{\mathrm{O}}}_2}}}$ metrics predicted the development of AMS. Contrary to the authors' hypotheses, mean and minimum S p O 2 ${{S}_{{\mathrm{p}}{{{\mathrm{O}}}_2}}}$ levels and the TST80 were not different between groups. However, the preterm group exhibited a lower ∆ S p O 2 ${{S}_{{\mathrm{p}}{{{\mathrm{O}}}_2}}}$ , and a greater nocturnal desaturation-induced hypoxic burden, which is calculated as the area under the curve during desaturation events, relative to their respective predesaturation baseline values. Additionally, in the preterm group only, the mean, minimum and morning S p O 2 ${{S}_{{\mathrm{p}}{{{\mathrm{O}}}_2}}}$ , along with TST80, predicted morning AMS scores. The elegant findings presented by Narang et al. (2025) offer several promising directions for future exploration. First, the inclusion of females in future studies to assess potential sex differences in the preterm group. Prior work indicates that periodic breathing is more prominent in males during sleep at altitude compared to females (Lombardi et al., 2013). Whether this sex difference exists among preterm individuals and how it may influence AMS development remains unclear. Second, assessing the interaction between chemosensitivity and AMS would provide mechanistic insight into AMS. Adults born preterm are a particularly interesting population for research to assess this interaction due to their blunted hypoxic ventilatory response (Bates et al., 2014). Lastly, the observed elevation (P = 0.05) in nocturnal heart rate in the preterm group deserves further exploration. Speculating on why nocturnal heart rate differed between groups is difficult without assessing nocturnal heart rate in normoxia (i.e., having a baseline condition). Measuring nocturnal cardiac baroreflex sensitivity and blood pressure variability between full-term and preterm born individuals could provide a unique opportunity in potential cardiovascular regulation differences between these two populations. Notably, aortic stiffness is elevated in preterm born adults compared to their full-term born counterparts (Barnard et al., 2020), which may indicate reduced baroreflex sensitivity and heightened blood pressure variability. AMS can range from being slightly uncomfortable to, in extreme circumstances, life threatening when it progresses to more serious altitude-related illnesses such as high-altitude pulmonary oedema or high-altitude cerebral oedema. Understanding the risk of developing AMS across different populations is essential to fully understand the underlying mechanism(s). For example, the effects of a commonly used pharmacological treatment for AMS, acetazolamide, is completely understudied in preterm birth, along with new and promising non-pharmacological treatments such as exogenous ketone supplementation. Narang et al. (2025) observed that mean and minimum S p O 2 ${{S}_{{\mathrm{p}}{{{\mathrm{O}}}_2}}}$ levels and the TST80 did not differ between groups, but nocturnal S p O 2 ${{S}_{{\mathrm{p}}{{{\mathrm{O}}}_2}}}$ recovery was lower, and the relative hypoxic burden was greater in the preterm group. Interestingly, the authors identified the predictive capacity of composite S p O 2 ${{S}_{{\mathrm{p}}{{{\mathrm{O}}}_2}}}$ variables on AMS such as mean, minimum and morning S p O 2 ${{S}_{{\mathrm{p}}{{{\mathrm{O}}}_2}}}$ and TST80 in the preterm group only, but reasoning as to why this was not observed in full-term birth is unclear, though it might be due to methodological differences from Joyce et al. (2024), who conducted a field research expedition rather than an acute hypoxia study in normobaria. Nevertheless, the results presented by Narang et al. (2025) are exciting as they underscore the potential utility of nocturnal S p O 2 ${{S}_{{\mathrm{p}}{{{\mathrm{O}}}_{\mathrm{2}}}}}$ metrics, particularly in individuals born preterm, for predicting AMS risk. These findings highlight the importance of considering birth history (in lowlander and highlander populations) in high-altitude research. Both authors have read and approved the final version of this manuscript and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. All persons designated as authors qualify for authorship, and all those who qualify for authorship are listed. None declared.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Expérimental (laboratoire) · Signal consensuel: Expérimental (laboratoire)
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,039
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,683

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,010
Tête enseignante GPT0,288
Écart entre enseignants0,278 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeExpérimental (laboratoire)
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2025
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueExperimental PhysiologyMême sujetHigh Altitude and HypoxiaTravaux en français237 207