Influence of high altitude on cerebrovascular and ventilatory responsiveness to CO <sub>2</sub>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An altered acid-base balance following ascent to high altitude has been well established. Such changes in pH buffering could potentially account for the observed increase in ventilatory CO(2) sensitivity at high altitude. Likewise, if [H(+)] is the main determinant of cerebrovascular tone, then an alteration in pH buffering may also enhance the cerebral blood flow (CBF) responsiveness to CO(2) (termed cerebrovascular CO(2) reactivity). However, the effect altered acid-base balance associated with high altitude ascent on cerebrovascular and ventilatory responsiveness to CO(2) remains unclear. We measured ventilation , middle cerebral artery velocity (MCAv; index of CBF) and arterial blood gases at sea level and following ascent to 5050 m in 17 healthy participants during modified hyperoxic rebreathing. At 5050 m, resting , MCAv and pH were higher (P < 0.01), while bicarbonate concentration and partial pressures of arterial O(2) and CO(2) were lower (P < 0.01) compared to sea level. Ascent to 5050 m also increased the hypercapnic MCAv CO(2) reactivity (2.9 +/- 1.1 vs. 4.8 +/- 1.4% mmHg(1); P < 0.01) and CO(2) sensitivity (3.6 +/- 2.3 vs. 5.1 +/- 1.7 l min(1) mmHg(1); P < 0.01). Likewise, the hypocapnic MCAv CO(2) reactivity was increased at 5050 m (4.2 +/- 1.0 vs. 2.0 +/- 0.6% mmHg(1); P < 0.01). The hypercapnic MCAv CO(2) reactivity correlated with resting pH at high altitude (R(2) = 0.4; P < 0.01) while the central chemoreflex threshold correlated with bicarbonate concentration (R(2) = 0.7; P < 0.01). These findings indicate that (1) ascent to high altitude increases the ventilatory CO(2) sensitivity and elevates the cerebrovascular responsiveness to hypercapnia and hypocapnia, and (2) alterations in cerebrovascular CO(2) reactivity and central chemoreflex may be partly attributed to an acid-base balance associated with high altitude ascent. Collectively, our findings provide new insights into the influence of high altitude on cerebrovascular function and highlight the potential role of alterations in acid-base balance in the regulation in CBF and ventilatory control.
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".