Bibliographic record
Abstract
Arousal is believed to be needed for upper airway opening in obstructive hypopneas-apneas, without compelling evidence to support this notion. The association may be incidental. I studied the temporal relation between arousal and opening and impact of arousal on flow response at opening in 82 patients (apnea-hypopnea index, 46 +/- 35/hour). Obstructive apneas-hypopneas were induced by dial-down of continuous positive airway pressure. Obstructions and hypopneas occurred in 44 and 56% of dial-downs, respectively. When arousal occurred (83% of dial-downs), the temporal relation between arousal and opening was inconsistent between and within patients. Frequency of opening without or before arousal increased with milder obstructions (p < 10(-9)) and with delta power of EEG (p < 10(-6)). Time of opening was unaffected by whether arousal occurred before or after opening (18.0 +/- 9.8 vs. 18.1 +/- 10.5 seconds). Flow response was already excessive when opening occurred without or before arousal (180 +/- 148% of initial flow decline) and was considerably higher when arousal occurred (267 +/- 154%, p < 10(-10)). Flow undershoot after first ventilatory response was greater if arousal occurred (p < 0.01). It is concluded that arousals are incidental events that occur when thresholds for arousal and for arousal-independent opening are close. They are not needed to initiate opening or to obtain adequate flow and they likely increase the severity of the disorder by promoting greater ventilatory instability.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".