MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1555891245 · doi:10.1113/jphysiol.2007.138883

Measuring the ventilatory response to hypoxia

2007· article· en· W1555891245 on OpenAlexaff
James Duffin

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physiology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience of respiration and sleep
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHypoxia (environmental)PeripheralHypoxic ventilatory responseAnesthesiaMedicineInternal medicineRespiratory systemChemistryOxygen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

After defining the current approach to measuring the hypoxic ventilatory response this paper explains why this method is not appropriate for comparisons between individuals or conditions, and does not adequately measure the parameters of the peripheral chemoreflex. A measurement regime is therefore proposed that incorporates three procedures. The first procedure measures the peripheral chemoreflex responsiveness to both hypoxia and CO(2) in terms of hypoxia's effects on the sensitivity and ventilatory recruitment threshold of the peripheral chemoreflex response to CO(2). The second and third procedures employ current methods for measuring the isocapnic and poikilocapnic ventilatory responses to hypoxia, respectively, over a period of 20 min. The isocapnic measure is used to determine the time course characteristics of hypoxic ventilatory decline and the poikilocapnic measure shows the ventilatory response to a hypoxic environment. A measurement regime incorporating these three procedures will permit a detailed assessment of the peripheral chemoreflex response to hypoxia that allows comparisons to be made between individuals and different physiological and environmental conditions.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations123
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of PhysiologySame topicNeuroscience of respiration and sleepFrench-language works237,207