A negative interaction between brainstem and peripheral respiratory chemoreceptors modulates peripheral chemoreflex magnitude
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interaction between central (brainstem) and peripheral (carotid body) respiratory chemosensitivity is vital to protect blood gases against potentially deleterious fluctuations, especially during sleep. Previously, using an in situ arterially perfused, vagotomized, decerebrate preparation in which brainstem and peripheral chemoreceptors are perfused separately (i.e. dual perfused preparation; DPP), we observed that the phrenic response to specific carotid body hypoxia was larger when the brainstem was held at 25 Torr P(CO(2)) compared to 50 Torr P(CO(2)). This suggests a negative (i.e. hypo-additive) interaction between chemoreceptors. The current study was designed to (a) determine whether this observation could be generalized to all carotid body stimuli, and (b) exclude the possibility that the hypo-additive response was the simple consequence of ventilatory saturation at high brainstem P(CO(2)). Specifically, we tested how steady-state brainstem P(CO(2)) modulates peripheral chemoreflex magnitude in response to carotid body P(CO(2)) and P(O(2)) perturbations, both above and below eupnoeic levels. We found that the peripheral chemoreflex was more responsive the lower the brainstem P(CO(2)) regardless of whether the peripheral chemoreceptors received stimuli which increased or decreased activation. These findings demonstrate a negative interaction between brainstem and peripheral chemosensitivity in the rat in the absence of ventilatory saturation. We suggest that a negative interaction in humans may contribute to increased controller gain associated with sleep-related breathing disorders and propose that the assumption of simple addition between chemoreceptor inputs used in current models of the respiratory control system be reconsidered.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".