Concomitant responses of upper airway stabilizing muscles to transcranial magnetic stimulation in normal men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Upper airway stabilizing muscles play a crucial role in the maintenance of upper airway patency. Transcranial magnetic stimulation allows the investigation of the corticomotor activation process for respiratory muscles. This technique has also been used to evaluate the genioglossus corticomotor response. The aims of this study were to characterize the response of different upper airway stabilizing muscles to focal cortical stimulation of the genioglossus. Alae nasi, genioglossus, levator palatini, palatoglossus and diaphragm motor-evoked potential responses to transcranial magnetic stimulation were recorded during expiration, tidal inspiration and deep inspiration in nine normal awake subjects. A concomitant response of the four studied upper airway muscles was observed in the majority of cortical stimuli. The response of these muscles was independent of the diaphragmatic one that was only occasionally observed. Significant positive relationships were found between alae nasi, levator palatini and palatoglossus motor-evoked potential latencies and amplitudes and the corresponding values of the genioglossus. We conclude that transcranial magnetic stimulation applied in the genioglossus area induces a concomitant motor response of upper airway stabilizing muscles with consistent changes in their motor responses during inspiratory manoeuvres.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".