MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1514193533 · doi:10.1113/jphysiol.2014.273284

Rebuttal from Magdy Younes

2014· letter· en· W1514193533 on OpenAlexaff
Magdy Younes

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physiology · 2014
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObstructive Sleep Apnea Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAirwayCardiologyInternal medicineAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is really little disagreement in the two accounts (Orr et al. 2014; Younes, 2014) if one considers that I addressed the increase in loop gain (LG) when the upper airway (UA) is unstable (hereafter called Actual LG) whereas Orr et al. addressed only that component of LG that is measured when UA is stabilized, the component I called Chemical LG. To put these two loop gains in the proper perspective I refer to several investigations from the laboratory of the opposing authors. Wellman et al. (2011) and Edwards et al. (2012) measured the Actual LG in obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) patients by relating the increase in ventilation at airway opening to the reduction in ventilation during the event. The values reported ranged from 1.4 to 14.0 (average 4.4). This is an order of magnitude greater than the Chemical LG (∼0.4; Younes et al. 2001; Wellman et al. 2004, 2008; Jordan et al. 2005). As indicated earlier (Younes, 2014), this difference results from an increased delay in getting a ventilatory response because the airway refuses to open until a threshold chemical drive, the ‘effective recruitment threshold’, is reached (Younes et al. 2007, 2012). Clearly, this increase in LG is a consequence of OSA. What is called a high LG in the absence of UA instability, and what is emphasized as a cause of OSA by Orr et al. is a Chemical LG of 0.7 with a maximum of 0.9 (Wellman et al. 2008). Even this relatively small increase in Chemical LG is the result of untreated OSA since it disappears with treatment (Loewen et al. 2009; Salloum et al. 2010). Orr et al. argue that this modest increase nonetheless contributes to the severity of OSA. I have no problem with this, and have in fact indicated so in my article (Younes, 2014). However, I believe that Orr et al. have exaggerated this clinical importance. They cite two papers in support of effectiveness of oxygen. The paper by Chowdhuri et al. (2010) simply demonstrated a reduction, with oxygen, in hypocapnic ventilatory response to CO2 in normal subjects. The study by Wellman et al. (2008) found >50% reduction in the apnoea–hypopnoea index (AHI) when breathing oxygen in only three out of six patients selected from a base of 43 patients because they had a high LG (range 0.4–0.9). Some of this AHI reduction was due to prolongation of apnoeic events and to disappearance of central/mixed events, which contributed ∼15% of baseline events. Thus the number of true obstructive events that were eliminated by oxygen must have been small. The acetazolamide evidence is also quite unconvincing. The 2013 study by Edwards et al. did not address the severity of OSA. In the 2012 study by Edwards et al. acetazolamide caused a reduction in AHI in patients already treated by continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and in whom Chemical LG was probably normal (Loewen et al. 2009; Salloum et al. 2010). So, it is not possible to attribute the improvement in AHI to a reduction in Chemical LG. It is important to note that both acetazolamide (Edwards et al. 2012) and oxygen breathing (Chowdhuri et al. 2010) increase baseline ventilation, and hence respiratory drive. Their helpful effects in some patients need not reflect a reduction in Chemical LG but may be because chemical drive needs to increase less to reach the effective recruitment threshold for UA opening. Readers are invited to give their views on this and the accompanying CrossTalk articles in this issue by submitting a brief comment. Comments may be posted up to 6 weeks after publication of the article, at which point the discussion will close and authors will be invited to submit a ‘final word’. To submit a comment, go to http://jp.physoc.org/letters/submit/jphysiol;592/14/2907 Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article. None declared.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.007
Scholarly communication0.0060.009
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0110.029
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0300.023

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.277 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Physiology→Same topicObstructive Sleep Apnea Research→French-language works237,207→