Independent and combined influences of hyperthermia and isocapnic hypoxia on the pattern of human breathing at rest and during submaximal exercise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We asked in this study how hyperthermia, isocapnic hypoxia or their combined effects influence the pattern of human breathing at rest and during submaximal exercise. Six males at rest and 6 males during light exercise (VO2~1.0 l/min) inspired 12% hypoxia with end-tidal CO2 held between 40–41 mm Hg. Increasing esophageal temperature (TES) by ~1.5°C with hot water immersion did not influence tidal volume (VT) at rest and addition of this hyperthermia did not influence the normal activity-induced increase of VT from a resting level of ~0.7 to ~1.2 L. Hyperthermia alone significantly increased frequency of breathing (FB) at rest value from ~15 to ~21 breaths/min (p<0.01) during exercise from 20 to ~22 (p<0.05). During normothermic immersion with TES at ~37.0°C, isocapnic hypoxia had no influence on FB however at rest it increased VT from ~0.7 L to ~1.1 (p<0.01) and during exercise from 1.2 to 1.6 L (p<0.05). The isocapnic hypoxia-induced increases in VT at rest and during exercise were marginally increased by the addition of hyperthermia. In conclusion, hyperthermia during rest or exercise increased the frequency of breathing whereas isocapnic hypoxia increased the depth of breathing an effect that was marginally augmented by hyperthermia.
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".