Effect of heliox breathing on flow limitation in chronic heart failure patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) exhibit orthopnoea and tidal expiratory flow limitation in the supine position. It is not known whether the flow-limiting segment occurs in the peripheral or central part of the tracheobronchial tree. The location of the flow-limiting segment can be inferred from the effects of heliox (80% helium/20% oxygen) administration. If maximal expiratory flow increases with this low-density mixture, the choke point should be located in the central airways, where the wave-speed mechanism dominates. If the choke point were located in the peripheral airways, where maximal flow is limited by a viscous mechanism, heliox should have no effect on flow limitation and dynamic hyperinflation. Tidal expiratory flow limitation, dynamic hyperinflation and breathing pattern were assessed in 14 stable CHF patients during air and heliox breathing at rest in the sitting and supine position. No patient was flow-limited in the sitting position. In the supine posture, eight patients exhibited tidal expiratory flow limitation on air. Heliox had no effect on flow limitation and dynamic hyperinflation and only minor effects on the breathing pattern. The lack of density dependence of maximal expiratory flow implies that, in CHF patients, the choke point is located in the peripheral airways.
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".