Augmented sympathetic neural response to simulated obstructive apnoea in human heart failure
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sleep apnoea in heart failure increases mortality risk, possibly as a result of greater activation of the sympathetic nervous system. In healthy subjects, simulated central apnoeas (holding breath) and obstructive apnoeas (Mueller manoeuvres) increase muscle sympathetic activity equally, primarily through chemoreceptor stimulation. In heart failure, however, Mueller manoeuvres cause greater reductions in blood pressure than breath holds. We hypothesized that in heart failure, the summation of arterial baroreceptor unloading and chemoreceptor stimulation would increase sympathetic activity more during obstructive than central apnoeas. Healthy human subjects and heart failure patients (seven of each) performed 15-s breath holds and 15-s Mueller manoeuvres. Breath holds evoked a progressive increase in muscle sympathetic nerve activity in both groups, but had no effect on blood pressure. In healthy subjects, breath holds and Mueller manoeuvres caused equal peaks in sympathetic activity. In contrast, in heart failure patients, Mueller manoeuvres caused a progressive decrease in blood pressure (P < 0.05) and greater increases in sympathetic activity than breath holds (P < 0.01). In heart failure, simulated obstructive apnoea elicits greater increases in sympathetic activity than simulated central apnoea, due to its additional hypotensive effect. These present findings offer novel insight into the potential role of sleep apnoea in augmenting sympathetic activity and accelerating disease progression in heart failure.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it