Morphology of Sighs and Their Role in the Control of Breathing in Preterm Infants, Term Infants and Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although there is evidence that sighs are important to restore lung volume, the factors responsible for inducing a sigh and the effects of sighs on the stability of the respiratory system remain unclear. OBJECTIVE: To compare newborn with adult sigh morphology in order to better understand the physiological mechanisms that induce sighs and the role sighs play on the control of breathing in infants. DESIGN/METHODS: We measured respiratory variables during control, the pre-sigh, the sigh, and the post-sigh period during quiet and REM sleep in 10 preterm infants, 10 term infants and 10 adults using a flow-through system. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed in any of the respiratory variables between the pre-sigh and the control breaths in any of the subjects in any of the two sleep states, suggesting that indices of respiratory drive are not predictive of an impending sigh. Sighs were relatively larger in infants than in adults and had a characteristic biphasic inspiratory flow observed almost exclusively in infants. While post-sigh ventilation was usually increased in adults, it was usually decreased in infants due to the presence of apneas. CONCLUSIONS: The established indexes of respiratory drive are not predictive of an impeding sigh. When compared with control breaths, sighs are much larger in preterm and term infants than in adults. These big augmented breaths in infants are often followed by apnea and hypoventilation likely secondary to the increased activity of the peripheral chemoreceptors present in neonates.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".