Evaluation of Respiratory Muscles Activity by Means of Cross Mutual Information Function at Different Levels of Ventilatory Effort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Analysis of respiratory muscles activity is an effective technique for the study of pulmonary diseases such as obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS). Respiratory diseases, especially those associated with changes in the mechanical properties of the respiratory apparatus, are often associated with disruptions of the normally highly coordinated contractions of respiratory muscles. Due to the complexity of the respiratory control, the assessment of OSAS related dysfunctions by linear methods are not sufficient. Therefore, the objective of this study was the detection of diagnostically relevant nonlinear complex respiratory mechanisms. Two aims of this work were: (1) to assess coordination of respiratory muscles contractions through evaluation of interactions between respiratory signals and myographic signals through nonlinear analysis by means of cross mutual information function (CMIF); (2) to differentiate between functioning of respiratory muscles in patients with OSAS and in normal subjects. Electromyographic (EMG) and mechanomyographic (MMG) signals were recorded from three respiratory muscles: genioglossus, sternomastoid and diaphragm. Inspiratory pressure and flow were also acquired. All signals were measured in eight patients with OSAS and eight healthy subjects during an increased respiratory effort while awake. Several variables were defined and calculated from CMIF in order to describe correlation between signals. The results indicate different nonlinear couplings of respiratory muscles in both populations. This effect is progressively more evident at higher levels of respiratory effort.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".