MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The ventilatory response to arousal from sleep is not fully explained by differences in CO<sub>2</sub> levels between sleep and wakefulness

2001· article· en· W2022880095 on OpenAlexaff
Richard L. Horner, M. Patricia Rivera, L. F. Kozar, Eliot A. Phillipson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physiology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience of respiration and sleep
Canadian institutionsCanada Research ChairsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArousalWakefulnessVentilation (architecture)Sleep (system call)AnesthesiaSleep onsetSleep and breathingPsychologyMedicineBreathingElectroencephalographyNeuroscienceInsomniaPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1. Arousal from sleep is associated with transient stimulation of ventilation above normal waking levels that predisposes to subsequent breathing instability and central apnoea. The transient hyperpnoea at arousal is normally explained by differences in arterial partial pressure of CO(2) (P(a,CO2)) between sleep and wakefulness, with a higher P(a,CO2) in sleep leading to stimulation of ventilation at arousal according to the awake ventilatory response to CO(2). Surprisingly, however, the validity of this current model in fully explaining the increased ventilation at arousal from sleep has not been directly tested. 2. This study tests the hypothesis that the level of ventilation at arousal from non-rapid eye movement (non-REM) sleep is greater than that produced by elevating P(a,CO2) in wakefulness to the sleeping level, i.e. the ventilation predicted by the current model. 3. Studies were performed in five dogs. Inspired CO(2) was used to increase end-tidal partial pressure of CO(2) (P(ET,CO2)) in wakefulness and measure the ventilatory response. The same P(ET,CO2) was then maintained in non-REM sleep. Ventilation was measured for 10 breaths before and after arousal from non-REM sleep induced by a 72 dB tone. 4. Arousal from sleep produced a transient surge in ventilation of 1.42 +/- 0.35 l min(-1) (P = 0.005). This increased ventilation was due to arousal from sleep per se as the tone alone produced no change in awake ventilation. In support of the hypothesis, ventilation at wake onset from sleep was greater by 0.83 +/- 0.28 l min(-1) (P = 0.031) than the ventilation elicited in wakefulness by raising P(ET,CO2) to the sleeping level. 5. The results show that > 50 % of the increase in ventilation at wake onset from sleep is not attributable to the awake ventilatory response to the elevated P(a,CO2) that was previously present in sleep. This result leads to important modifications of the physiological model currently used to explain the ventilatory consequences of arousal from sleep.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.223
Threshold uncertainty score0.413

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations71
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of PhysiologySame topicNeuroscience of respiration and sleepFrench-language works237,207