Carotid denervation does not influence autoresuscitation from hypoxic‐induced apnea in newborn rat pups (LB782)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Autoresuscitation (AR) failure from hypoxic‐induced apnea by gasping has been suggested to play a role in sudden infant death. Little is known, however, about the factors that influence gasping and its ability to effect AR in the newborn. The present experiments were carried out on 5 to 6 day‐old rat pups to investigate the influence of carotid denervation (CD) on gasping during a single hypoxic exposure, and on AR during repeated hypoxic exposures. CD decreased basal respiratory frequency but not heart rate as compared to sham‐operated pups and eliminated the respiratory frequency response to alveolar hypoxia. CD decreased the time to hypoxic arousal/excitement but did not significantly influence the time to primary apnea, the time to last gasp or the total number of gasps during a single unrelenting hypoxic exposure. Furthermore, CD did not alter the number of hypoxic exposures tolerated before AR failure (Sham 15±2 – CD 15±3) Our data provide evidence that although the carotid chemoreceptors mediate the respiratory and arousal/excitement responses during exposure to hypoxia they do not modulate gasping or influence the ability of gasping to effect successful AR during repeated exposure to hypoxia. Grant Funding Source : CIHR
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".