MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Hypoxia Depresses Nitric Oxide Output in the Human Nasal Airways

2000· article· en· W1986196080 on OpenAlexaff
James S. J. Haight, Wei Qian, Hamid Daya, Patsy Chalmers, Noé Zamel

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Laryngoscope · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNasal Surgery and Airway Studies
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of TorontoToronto General HospitalSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOxygenNitric oxideHypoxia (environmental)NoseRoom air distributionHypoxic pulmonary vasoconstrictionAnesthesiaMucous membrane of noseRespiratory systemChemistryMedicineVasoconstrictionInternal medicineAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: The role of oxygen in the nasal air on nasal nitric oxide (NO) output was studied in 13 adult volunteers. METHODS: Nasal NO was measured while air containing oxygen (0%-100% in nitrogen) was aspirated through the nasal airway before and after the topical application of xylometazoline. RESULTS: The mean nasal NO output of the untreated nose was 507.8 +/- 161.9 nL/min (mean +/- SD) when 21% oxygen was aspirated through the nasal cavities in series and remained unaltered by 100% O2 (P = .79). Below 10% oxygen the reduction in nasal NO output correlated positively and significantly with the decrease in oxygen concentration (r2 = 0.14). NO output was 245.2 +/- 153.4 nL/min at 0% oxygen, a significant decline from 21% oxygen (P < .0001). Nasal vasoconstriction induced by xylometazoline and alterations in the blood oxygen content by a maximal breath-holding or breathing 100% oxygen did not alter nasal NO in hypoxia (P = .41). CONCLUSIONS: Nasal NO output is markedly depressed in hypoxia and is oxygen dependent at concentrations of less than 10%. Approximately 50% of nasally generated NO is produced from oxygen in nasal air or regulated by it.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.292
Threshold uncertainty score0.547

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.250 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe LaryngoscopeSame topicNasal Surgery and Airway StudiesFrench-language works237,207