Prior exposure to hypoxic-induced apnea impairs protective responses of newborn rats in an exposure-dependent fashion: influence of normoxic recovery time
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Experiments were carried out to determine whether prior exposure to hypoxic-induced apnea impairs protective responses of newborn rats. Ninety-five, 5- to 6-day-old rat pups were instrumented for respiratory measurements and placed prone in a metabolic chamber regulated to 37.0 degrees C. The time to first and last gasp as well as the number of gasps were determined on exposure to unrelenting hypoxia after each pup had experienced 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, or 14 hypoxic-induced apnea/autoresuscitation cycles (HIA/AR) at 5-min intervals. Prior exposure to HIA/AR did not significantly alter the time to first gasp, but it decreased the time to last gasp after two HIA/AR and the number of gasps after three HIA/AR on exposure to unrelenting hypoxia. When the normoxic recovery time after 9 HIA/AR was varied from 5 to 120 min, the time to last gasp as well as the total number of gasps increased on exposure to unrelenting hypoxia but only at 120 min (i.e., the number of gasps was similar but the time to last gasp was still decreased compared with that observed in naive animals exposed to unrelenting hypoxia). Thus prior exposure to hypoxic-induced apnea as may occur during obstructive sleep apnea or positional asphyxia decreases the number and duration of potential autoresuscitation producing gasps on exposure to unrelenting hypoxia for a period of up to and exceeding 120 min, respectively. The mechanism by which prior exposure to hypoxic-induced apnea influences the duration and number of hypoxic-induced gasps is unknown.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".