Twin Studies in Altitude and Hypoxia Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Humans exhibit high individual variation in response to acute hypoxia exposure. A number of published studies have used a classic 'twin study' model, comparing responses within pairs of monozygotic and dizygotic twins, to separate genetic from environmental contributions to the variation in altitude acclimatization. Available data suggest that some aspects of acclimatization have a heritable component. Most prominent is the hypoxic ventilatory response (HVR), which was repeatedly shown to be heritable in a number of age groups spanning infancy to adulthood (F-ratio range: 2.03 to 5.26). The ventilatory response to hypercapnia appears to only be heritable when tested in hypoxic conditions, providing additional evidence for a genetic component to the HVR (F-ratio range: 0.31, 6.92). A number of studies reported an estimate of heritability for more general hypoxic responses, such as heart rate, blood pressure, and blood gases; however, many of these studies relied on relatively small sample sizes and used inaccurate estimates of heritability and thus provided inconclusive evidence to elucidate the source of variation. Future genetic inquiries into the basis of variation in altitude acclimatization might benefit from further use of the classic twin study model: these experiments could identify the specific endophenotypes of altitude acclimatization that are heritable and therefore promising candidates for subsequent molecular studies, such as candidate-gene or genome-wide association studies.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".