Effect of sustained hypoxia on diaphragm length
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Classic studies suggest an increase in resting end-expiratory lung volume (FRC) with hypoxia. Therefore, hypoxic increases in FRC have been purported to cause decreased resting length of the diaphragm. To date, diaphragm end-expiratory resting baseline length (L BL ) during hypoxia has not been directly measured in any awake intact mammals. Methods: 18 days after implantation of sonomicrometers in the costal (COS) diaphragm in canines, we measured awake airflow, SpO 2 , ETCO 2 , and COS length during room air breathing then 25 min sustained isocapnic hypoxia (mean 79.5% SpO 2 ). We report: 5 min room air (BASE), sustained hypoxia: first 3 min (PEAK) and final 5 min (PLATEAU), and then 5 min room air (RECOVERY) for breathing pattern and L BL . Results: For N=8 (mean 29.5kg), minute ventilation and tidal volume increased significantly from BASE to PEAK, then decreased to PLATEAU (p BL remained virtually unchanged from BASE to PEAK, however, with PLATEAU L BL decreased significantly (p BL remained significantly decreased compared to BASE (p Conclusion: Hypoxia induced a significant decrease in diaphragm end-expiratory length. However, changes in diaphragm length occurred only when hypoxia was sustained, not during acute hypoxia. This may impact the force output of a contracting diaphragm in vivo during respiratory failure.
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) | 0.002 | 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".