Circadian rhythms and sleep have additive effects on respiration in the rat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. We tested two hypotheses: that respiration and metabolism are subject to circadian modulation in wakefulness, non-rapid-eye-movement (NREM) sleep and rapid-eye-movement (REM) sleep; and that the effects of sleep on breathing vary as a function of time of day. 2. Electroencephalogram (EEG), neck electromyogram (EMG) and abdominal body temperature (T(b)) were measured by telemetry in six male Sprague-Dawley rats. The EEG and EMG were used to identify sleep-wake states. Ventilation (V(I)) and metabolic rate (V(CO2)) were measured by plethysmography. Recordings were made over 24 h (12:12 h light:dark) when rats were in established states of wakefulness, NREM sleep and REM sleep. 3. Statistically significant circadian rhythms were observed in V(I) and V(CO2) in each of the wakefulness, NREM sleep and REM sleep states. Amplitudes and phases of the circadian rhythms were similar across sleep-wake states. 4. The circadian rhythm in V(I) was mediated by a circadian rhythm in respiratory frequency (f(R)). Tidal volume (V(T)) was unaffected by time of day in all three sleep-wake states. 5. The 24 h mean V(I) was significantly greater during wakefulness (363.5 +/- 18.5 ml min(-1)) than during NREM sleep (284.8 +/- 11.1 ml min(-1)) and REM sleep (276.1 +/- 13.9 ml min(-1)). V(CO2) and V(T) each significantly decreased from wakefulness to NREM sleep to REM sleep. f(R) was significantly lower in NREM sleep than in wakefulness and REM sleep. 6. These data confirm that ventilation and metabolism exhibit circadian rhythms during wakefulness, and NREM and REM sleep, and refute the hypothesis that state-related effects on breathing vary as a function of time of day. We conclude that the effects of circadian rhythms and sleep-wake state on respiration and metabolic rate are additive in the rat.
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".