Breath‐Holding: Simple Demonstrations of Complex Physiology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The complex interaction of chemical (i.e. chemoreceptors) and mechanical (i.e. lung‐stretch receptors) factors influences breath‐holding (BH). The aim of this project was to develop a simple set of procedures to be used as class‐room demonstrations or laboratory exercises to differentiate the roles of chemical and mechanical mechanisms in regulating BH. The increase in ventilation during rebreathing (plastic bag) was initially used to demonstrate the progressive increase in drive to breathe due to chemical factors. BH time (stopwatch) was also used as a quantifiable and intuitive metric of drive to breathe. Maximal BH's were conducted under the following conditions: 1) end‐expiratory BH (lung stretch receptor unloading), 2) end‐inspiratory BH (lung stretch receptor loading), 3) BH following 30s of hyperventilation (reduces pCO 2 & isolates the influence of decreased pO 2 ), and 4) BH following 5 breaths of pure oxygen (elevates pO 2 & isolates the influence of increased pCO 2 ). Using the end‐expiratory BH as the standard, students observed the increase in BH time with each of the other 3 maneuvers. An advanced critical thinking procedure was also introduced whereby students rebreathed in and out of a bag twice at the end of a maximal BH before attempting to hold their breath again. This procedure highlights the powerful suppression of drive to breathe by lung‐stretch receptors despite elevated chemical drive to breathe. These procedures represent a simple method to highlight complex physiological mechanisms which contribute to the drive to breathe. Such simple activities are suitable and adaptable for use across a range of physiology curricula and teaching settings.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".