Interactive Ventilatory Effects of Two Respiratory Stimulants, Caffeine and Doxapram, in Newborn Lambs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Caffeine and doxapram are two respiratory stimulants used in the treatment of apnea in newborns. When used concurrently, these drugs may produce interactive effects on the control of breathing in the newborn. The ventilatory effects of these drugs, given alone or together, were measured during 150 min of drug infusion in two groups of awake lambs 2-5 days old. The first group (n = 5) received a caffeine loading dose of 10 mg/kg followed by a maintenance dose of 0.1 mg/kg/h and incremental doses of doxapram: 0.25, 0.5, 1.25 and 2.5 mg/kg/30 min. The second group (n = 5) received a doxapram loading dose of 5.5 mg/kg followed by a maintenance dose of 1 mg/kg/h and incremental doses of caffeine: 2.5, 5.0, 7.5 and 10.0 mg/kg/30 min. In the first group, ventilation increased after the caffeine loading dose from 566 +/- 55 to 680 +/- 74 ml/kg/min (plasma caffeine = 14.7 +/- 1.6 mg/l) and progressively increased with the addition of incremental doses of doxapram up to 1,000 +/- 108 ml/kg/min at 2.5 mg/kg of doxapram (p less than 0.001 compared to baseline and caffeine loading dose). In contrast, in the second group, the doxapram loading dose markedly increased ventilation from 582 +/- 50 to 936 +/- 75 (p less than 0.002 and p less than 0.04 compared to caffeine loading dose) at plasma doxapram of 5.3 +/- 0.8 mg/l, but incremental doses of caffeine had no effects. We conclude that doxapram exerts a brisk and powerful respiratory stimulant effect and produces an additional dose-dependent ventilatory response when added to caffeine.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".