Expiratory activation of abdominal muscle is associated with improved respiratory stability and an increase in minute ventilation in REM epochs of adult rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Breathing is more vulnerable to apneas and irregular breathing patterns during rapid eye movement (REM) sleep in both humans and rodents. We previously reported that robust and recurrent recruitment of expiratory abdominal (ABD) muscle activity is present in rats during REM epochs despite ongoing REM-induced muscle atonia in skeletal musculature. To develop a further understanding of the characteristics of ABD recruitment during REM epochs and their relationship with breathing patterns and irregularities, we sought to compare REM epochs that displayed ABD muscle recruitment with those that did not, within the same rats. Specifically, we investigated respiratory characteristics that preceded and followed recruitment. We hypothesized that ABD muscle recruitment would be likely to occur following respiratory irregularities and would subsequently contribute to respiratory stability and the maintenance of good ventilation following recruitment. Our data demonstrate that epochs of REM sleep containing ABD recruitments (REM(ABD+)) were characterized by increased respiratory rate variability and increased presence of spontaneous brief central apneas. Within these epochs, respiratory events that displayed ABD muscle activation were preceded by periods of increased respiratory rate variability. Onset of ABD muscle activity increased tidal volume, amplitude of diaphragmatic contractions, and minute ventilation compared with the periods preceding ABD muscle activation. These results show that expiratory muscle activity is more likely recruited when respiration is irregular and its recruitment is subsequently associated with an increase in minute ventilation and a more regular respiratory rhythm.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".