The effects of hyperthermia and hypoxia on ventilation during low-intensity steady-state exercise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study assessed whether the elevated sensitivity of ventilation to hypoxia during exercise is accounted for by an elevation of esophageal temperature (T(es)). Eleven males volunteered for two exercise sessions on an underwater, head-out cycle ergometer at a steady-state rate of oxygen consumption (V(.)(O(2))) of approximately 0.87 l/min (SD 0.07). In one exercise session, 31.5 degrees C (SD 1.4) water held T(es) at a normothermic level of approximately 37.1 degrees C, and in the other exercise session, water at 38.2 degrees C (SD 0.1) maintained a hyperthermic T(es) of approximately 38.5 degrees C. After a 30-min rest and 20-min warm-up, exercising participants inhaled air for 10 min [Euoxia 1 (E1)], an isocapnic hypoxic gas mixture with 12% O(2) in N(2) (H1) for the next 10 min and air again [Euoxia 2 (E2)] for the last 10 min. A significant increase in V(.)(E) during all hyperthermia conditions (0.01< P < 0.048) was evident; however, during hyperthermic hypoxia, there was a disproportionate and significant (P = 0.017) increase in V(.)(E) relative to normothermic hypoxia. This was the main explanation for a significant esophageal temperature and gas type interaction (P = 0.012) for V(.)(E). Significant effects of hyperthermia, isocapnic hypoxia, and their positive interaction remained evident after removing the influence of (V(.)(O(2))) on V(.)(E). Serum lactate and potassium concentrations, as well as hemoglobin oxygen saturation, were each not significantly different between normothermic and hyperthermic-hypoxic conditions. In conclusion, the elevated sensitivity of exercise ventilation to hypoxia during exertion appears to be modulated by elevations in esophageal temperature, potentially because of a temperature-mediated stimulation of the peripheral chemoreceptors.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".