MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Components and mechanisms of thermal hyperpnea

2006· review· en· W2026510057 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew D. White

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Physiology · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience of respiration and sleep
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHyperpneaHyperventilationHyperthermiaThermoregulationHypocapniaRespiratory alkalosisVentilation (architecture)Tidal volumeAnesthesiaMedicineChemistryRespiratory systemHypercapniaInternal medicineAcidosisMetabolic acidosisThermodynamicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The pattern of breathing during a hyperthermia-induced hyperventilation varies across different species. Thermal tachypnea is a first phase panting response adopted during hyperthermia when tidal volume is minimized and the frequency of breathing is maximized. Blood-gas tensions and pH are maintained during this hyperventilation, and the associated heat loss helps the animal regulate its body temperature. A second pattern of breathing adopted in hyperthermia is thermal hyperpnea; this response is the focus of this review. This form of hyperventilation is evident after an increase in core temperature and it is apparent in humans. Increases of tidal volume as well as frequency of breathing are evident during this response that results in a respiratory alkalosis. The cause of thermal hyperpnea is not resolved; evidence of the potential mechanisms underlying this response support that modulators of the response act in either a multiplicative or additive manner with body temperatures. The details of the designs and methodologies of the studies supporting or refuting these two views are discussed. A physiological rationale for thermal hyperpnea is presented in which it is suggested this response serves a heat-loss role and contributes to selective brain cooling in hyperthermic humans. Ongoing research in this area is focused on resolving the mechanisms underlying thermal hyperpnea and its contribution to cranial thermoregulation. The direct application of this research is for the care of febrile and hyperthermic patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations161
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied PhysiologySame topicNeuroscience of respiration and sleepFrench-language works237,207