MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057762092 · doi:10.1042/cs20030260

Voluntary breath-holding in the morning and in the evening

2004· article· en· W2057762092 on OpenAlexaff
Gerardo Bosco, Alessandro Ionadi, Piergiorgio G. DATA, Jacopo P. Mortola

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Science · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience of respiration and sleep
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEveningMorningMedicinePsychologyInternal medicinePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of the present study was to determine whether or not voluntary breath-holding time (BHT) changes with the time of the day. BHT with airways closed at end-expiration was measured in six male subjects in the sitting position during the morning (08.00-12.00 hours, on days 1, 6, 7 and 8) and evening (20.00-24.00 hours, on days 2 and 4). BHT increased with the number of days of testing and, at day 8, the morning values averaged 160% of those on day 1. Also, Delta P ACO2 [the difference between end-tidal partial pressure of CO2 ( P CO2) and alveolar P CO2 ( P ACO2) at the breaking point] increased in proportion to BHT. Hence the BHT/Delta P ACO2 ratio remained nearly constant. Voluntary hyperventilation prolonged BHT and increased Delta P ACO2. Conversely, in hypoxia (13% O2 for 1-2 h), BHT and Delta P ACO2 were reduced proportionally. During the evening sessions, most of the BHT/Delta P ACO2 ratios in normoxia, hypoxia or after hyperventilation were higher than the corresponding morning values, with the group difference reaching statistical significance for the measurements in normoxia and hypoxia. In conclusion, voluntary BHT varies in both duration and its relationship with Delta P ACO2 between the morning and evening hours. The results should also imply that, with an interruption of breathing, changes in alveolar and arterial gases are not the same at different times of the day.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.124
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical ScienceSame topicNeuroscience of respiration and sleepFrench-language works237,207