Fractal ventilation enhances respiratory sinus arrhythmia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Programming a mechanical ventilator with a biologically variable or fractal breathing pattern (an example of 1/f noise) improves gas exchange and respiratory mechanics. Here we show that fractal ventilation increases respiratory sinus arrhythmia (RSA) -- a mechanism known to improve ventilation/perfusion matching. METHODS: Pigs were anaesthetised with propofol/ketamine, paralysed with doxacurium, and ventilated in either control mode (CV) or in fractal mode (FV) at baseline and then following infusion of oleic acid to result in lung injury. RESULTS: Mean RSA and mean positive RSA were nearly double with FV, both at baseline and following oleic acid. At baseline, mean RSA = 18.6 msec with CV and 36.8 msec with FV (n = 10; p = 0.043); post oleic acid, mean RSA = 11.1 msec with CV and 21.8 msec with FV (n = 9, p = 0.028); at baseline, mean positive RSA = 20.8 msec with CV and 38.1 msec with FV (p = 0.047); post oleic acid, mean positive RSA = 13.2 msec with CV and 24.4 msec with FV (p = 0.026). Heart rate variability was also greater with FV. At baseline the coefficient of variation for heart rate was 2.2% during CV and 4.0% during FV. Following oleic acid the variation was 2.1 vs. 5.6% respectively. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest FV enhances physiological entrainment between respiratory, brain stem and cardiac nonlinear oscillators, further supporting the concept that RSA itself reflects cardiorespiratory interaction. In addition, these results provide another mechanism whereby FV may be superior to conventional CV.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".