Effects of Walking on Ventilatory and Cardiac Function in Intact and Cardiac‐Impaired Lobsters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Decapod crustaceans with normal heart function respond to the increased oxygen delivery requirements during walking with a step increase in heart and ventilation rate. In American lobsters, ventilation rate increased by the same amount during exercise at two walking speeds (2.4 and 8 m min(-1)); however, ventilation volume was significantly greater at the fastest walking speed (280 mL min(-1)) compared to animals at rest or walking at the slower speed (180 mL min(-1)). The heart responded in a similar manner to locomotion. Heart rate was elevated to the same level at the two different walking speeds, but cardiac stroke volume was greater, implying increased cardiac output, at the faster walking speed. The communication and compensation between the cardiac and ventilatory systems was revealed when the function of one was impaired. Ventilatory rate was significantly elevated when cardiac output was impaired by sectioning two of the alary ligaments and/or the regulatory nerves to the heart. When cardiac output was more severely impaired, ventilation rate was greater. Despite ventilatory compensation, anaerobic metabolism made a greater contribution to energy production with impaired heart function. Hemolymph lactate concentration was three to five times greater in impaired animals than controls. It is known that the ventilatory and cardiac systems of lobsters are coregulated. These data demonstrate that the performance of one system can respond to compensate for impaired function in the other.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".