Geniohyoid muscle function in awake canines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The geniohyoid (Genio) upper airway muscle shows phasic, inspiratory electrical activity in awake humans but no activity and lengthening in anesthetized cats. There is no information about the mechanical action of the Genio, including length and shortening, in any awake, nonanesthetized mammal during respiration (or swallowing). Therefore, we studied four canines, mean weight 28.8 kg, 1.5 days after Genio implantation with sonomicrometry transducers and bipolar electromyogram (EMG) electrodes. Awake recordings of breathing pattern, muscle length and shortening, and EMG activity were made with the animal in the right lateral decubitus position during quiet resting, CO2-stimulated breathing, inspiratory-resisted breathing (80 cmH2O. l-1. s), and airway occlusion. Genio length and activity were also measured during swallowing, when it shortened, showing a 9.31% change from resting length, and its EMG activity increased 6.44 V. During resting breathing, there was no phasic Genio EMG activity at all, and Genio showed virtually no movement during inspiration. During CO2-stimulated breathing, Genio showed minimal lengthening of only 0.07% change from resting length, whereas phasic EMG activity was still absent. During inspiratory-resisted breathing and airway occlusion, Genio showed phasic EMG activity but still lengthened. We conclude that the Genio in awake, nonanesthetized canines shows active contraction and EMG activity only during swallowing. During quiet or stimulated breathing, Genio is electrically inactive with passive lengthening. Even against resistance, Genio is electrically active but still lengthens during inspiration.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".