Objective and Subjective Measures in Recovery from a 35% Carbon Dioxide Challenge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Because hyperventilation, dyspnea, and a feeling of choking are often core features of a panic attack, respiration has been one of the most widely studied physiological parameters in panic disorder (PD) patients. A respiratory subgroup of PD, with distinct etiological pathways, has also been suggested. Investigation of the recovery phase following a respiratory challenge may be a reliable way to establish respiratory impairment in PD patients. The objective of the present study was to investigate the recovery phase from a 35% carbon dioxide challenge in PD patients and in healthy controls, and to test the hypothesis of a different respiratory pattern in patients, compared to control subjects. METHODS: Eleven nonmedicated PD patients with or without agoraphobia, 11 medicated PD patients, and 11 control subjects took part in a 35% carbon dioxide and 65% oxygen inhalation challenge. Respiratory rate, partial pressure of carbon dioxide, heart rate, and blood pressure were recorded during the baseline phase (10 minutes) and the recovery phase (10 minutes). Visual Analogue Scale of Anxiety and Panic Symptom List scores were collected pre- and post-challenge. RESULTS: Nonmedicated patients had increased variability in respiratory rate and partial pressure of carbon dioxide during recovery, compared with control subjects and medicated PD patients. Also, PD patients tended to have higher heart rates and to need more time to recover from the challenge than control subjects. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that PD patients have less effective homeostatic control after their physiological equilibrium has been disrupted by a respiratory stressor.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".