Two patterns of daily hypoxic exposure and their effects on measures of chemosensitivity in humans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare chemoresponses following two different intermittent hypoxia (IH) protocols in humans. Ten men underwent two 7-day courses of poikilocapnic IH. The long-duration IH (LDIH) protocol consisted of daily 60-min exposures to normobaric 12% O(2). The short-duration IH (SDIH) protocol comprised twelve 5-min bouts of 12% O(2), separated by 5-min bouts of room air, daily. Isocapnic hypoxic ventilatory response (HVR) was measured daily during the protocol and 1 and 7 days following. Hypercapnic ventilatory response (HCVR) and CO(2) threshold and sensitivity (by the modified Read rebreathing technique) were measured on days 1, 8, and 14. Following 7 days of IH, the mean HVR was significantly increased from 0.47 +/- 0.07 and 0.47 +/- 0.08 to 0.70 +/- 0.06 and 0.79 +/- 0.06 l.min(-1).%Sa(O(2))(-1) (LDIH and SDIH, respectively), where %Sa(O(2)) is percent arterial oxygen saturation. The increase in HVR reached a plateau after the third day. One week post-IH, HVR values were unchanged from baseline. HCVR increased from 3.0 +/- 0.4 to 4.0 +/- 0.5 l.min(-1).mmHg(-1). In both the hyperoxic and hypoxic modified Read rebreathing tests, the slope of the CO(2)/ventilation plot was unchanged by either intervention, but the CO(2)/ventilation curve shifted to the left following IH. There were no correlations between the changes in response to hypoxia and hypercapnia. There were no significant differences between the two IH protocols for any measures, indicating that comparable changes in chemoreflex control occur with either protocol. These results also suggest that the two methods of measuring CO(2) response are not completely concordant and that the changes in CO(2) control do not correlate with the increase in the HVR.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".