Phase transitions in physiologic coupling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Integrated physiological systems, such as the cardiac and the respiratory system, exhibit complex dynamics that are further influenced by intrinsic feedback mechanisms controlling their interaction. To probe how the cardiac and the respiratory system adjust their rhythms, despite continuous fluctuations in their dynamics, we study the phase synchronization of heartbeat intervals and respiratory cycles. The nature of this interaction, its physiological and clinical relevance, and its relation to mechanisms of neural control is not well understood. We investigate whether and how cardiorespiratory phase synchronization (CRPS) responds to changes in physiological states and conditions. We find that the degree of CRPS in healthy subjects dramatically changes with sleep-stage transitions and exhibits a pronounced stratification pattern with a 400% increase from rapid eye movement sleep and wake, to light and deep sleep, indicating that sympatho-vagal balance strongly influences CRPS. For elderly subjects, we find that the overall degree of CRPS is reduced by approximately 40%, which has important clinical implications. However, the sleep-stage stratification pattern we uncover in CRPS does not break down with advanced age, and surprisingly, remains stable across subjects. Our results show that the difference in CRPS between sleep stages exceeds the difference between young and elderly, suggesting that sleep regulation has a significantly stronger effect on cardiorespiratory coupling than healthy aging. We demonstrate that CRPS and the traditionally studied respiratory sinus arrhythmia represent different aspects of the cardiorespiratory interaction, and that key physiologic variables, related to regulatory mechanisms of the cardiac and respiratory systems, which influence respiratory sinus arrhythmia, do not affect CRPS.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".