Hypoxic Respiratory Response during Acute Stable Hypocapnia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The hypoxic ventilatory response during hypocapnia has been studied with divergent results. We used volume-cycled ventilation in spontaneously breathing normal subjects to study their hypoxic ventilatory response under conditions of stable hypocapnia. Subjects were studied at three different levels of end-tidal (partial) carbon dioxide pressure (PETCO2), eucapnia and 6 and 12 mm Hg below eucapnia (mild and moderate hypocapnia, respectively). The response to hypoxia was assessed by changes in muscle pressure output (Pmus) and respiratory rate. Compared with the Pmus response at eucapnia (0.53 +/- 0.59 cm H2O/percentage oxygen saturation [% O2sat]), the response at mild hypocapnia was attenuated (0.26 +/- 0.33 cm H2O/% O2sat), whereas the response at moderate hypocapnia was negligible (0.003 +/- 0.09 cm H2O/% O2sat). Similar reductions were seen with the respiratory rate (eucapnia, 0.17 +/- 0.2 breaths/minute/% O2sat; mild hypocapnia, 0.11 +/- 0.11 breaths/minute/% O2sat; moderate hypocapnia, 0.01 +/- 0.06 breaths/minute/% O2sat). The Pmus and respiratory rate responses at the three levels of PETCO2 were significantly different (p < 0.05, analysis of variance). The responses at moderate hypocapnia were not significantly different from zero. We conclude that when apnea occurs under conditions in which central PCO2 is well below the CO2 setpoint, subjects are at risk of developing dangerous hypoxemia due to absence of a hypoxic ventilatory response.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".