Peripheral chemoreceptor contributions to sympathetic and cardiovascular responses during hypercapnia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We tested the hypothesis that integrated sympathetic and cardiovascular reflexes are modulated by systemic CO2 differently in hypoxia than in hyperoxia (n = 7). Subjects performed a CO2 rebreathe protocol that equilibrates CO2 partial pressures between arterial and venous blood and that elevates end tidal CO2 (PET(CO2)) from approximately 40 to approximately 58 mmHg. This test was repeated under conditions where end tidal oxygen levels were clamped at 50 (hypoxia) or 200 (hyperoxia) mmHg. Heart rate (HR; EKG), stroke volume (SV; Doppler ultrasound), blood pressure (MAP; finger plethysmograph), and muscle sympathetic nerve activity (MSNA) were measured continuously during the two protocols. MAP at 40 mmHg PET(CO2) (i.e., the first minute of the rebreathe) was greater during hypoxia versus hyperoxia (P < 0.05). However, the increase in MAP during the rebreathe (P < 0.05) was similar in hypoxia (16 +/- 3 mmHg) and hyperoxia (17 +/- 2 mmHg PET(CO2)). The increase in cardiac output (Q) at 55 mmHg PET(CO2) was greater in hypoxia (2.61 +/- 0.7 L/min) versus hyperoxia (1.09 +/- 0.44 L/min) (P < 0.05). In both conditions the increase in Q was due to elevations in both HR and SV (P < 0.05). Systemic vascular conductance (SVC) increased to similar absolute levels in both conditions but rose earlier during hypoxia (> 50 mmHg PET(CO2)) than hyperoxia (> 55 mmHg). MSNA increased earlier during hypoxic hypercapnia (> 45 mmHg) compared with hyperoxic hypercapnia (> 55 mmHg). Thus, in these conscious humans, the dose-response effect of PET(CO2) on the integrated cardiovascular responses was shifted to the left during hypoxic hypercapnia. The combined data indicate that peripheral chemoreceptors exert important influence over cardiovascular reflex responses to hypercapnia.
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".