MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098602786 · doi:10.1113/jphysiol.2009.186064

Differences in the control of breathing between Andean highlanders and lowlanders after 10 days acclimatization at 3850 m

2010· article· en· W2098602786 on OpenAlexaff
Marat Slessarev, Alexandra Mardimae, David Preiss, Alex Vesely, Dahlia Y. Balaban, Richard E. Greene, James Duffin, Joseph A. Fisher

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physiology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience of respiration and sleep
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHyperoxiaHypoxia (environmental)Ventilation (architecture)AcclimatizationRespirationPopulationControl of respirationAnesthesiaBiologyInternal medicineMedicineRespiratory systemOxygenChemistryLungAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We used Duffin's isoxic hyperoxic ( mmHg) and hypoxic ( mmHg) rebreathing tests to compare the control of breathing in eight (7 male) Andean highlanders and six (4 male) acclimatizing Caucasian lowlanders after 10 days at 3850 m. Compared to lowlanders, highlanders had an increased non-chemoreflex drive to breathe, characterized by higher basal ventilation at both hyperoxia (10.5 +/- 0.7 vs. 4.9 +/- 0.5 l min(1), P = 0.002) and hypoxia (13.8 +/- 1.4 vs. 5.7 +/- 0.9 l min(1), P < 0.001). Highlanders had a single ventilatory sensitivity to CO(2) that was lower than that of the lowlanders (P < 0.001), whose response was characterized by two ventilatory sensitivities (VeS1 and VeS2) separated by a patterning threshold. There was no difference in ventilatory recruitment thresholds (VRTs) between populations (P = 0.209). Hypoxia decreased VRT within both populations (highlanders: 36.4 +/- 1.3 to 31.7 +/- 0.7 mmHg, P < 0.001; lowlanders: 35.3 +/- 1.3 to 28.8 +/- 0.9 mmHg, P < 0.001), but it had no effect on basal ventilation (P = 0.12) or on ventilatory sensitivities in either population (P = 0.684). Within lowlanders, VeS2 was substantially greater than VeS1 at both isoxic tensions (hyperoxic: 9.9 +/- 1.7 vs. 2.8 +/- 0.2, P = 0.005; hypoxic: 13.2 +/- 1.9 vs. 2.8 +/- 0.5, P < 0.001), although hypoxia had no effect on either of the sensitivities (P = 0.192). We conclude that the control of breathing in Andean highlanders is different from that in acclimatizing lowlanders, although there are some similarities. Specifically, acclimatizing lowlanders have relatively lower non-chemoreflex drives to breathe, increased ventilatory sensitivities to CO(2), and an altered pattern of ventilatory response to CO(2) with two ventilatory sensitivities separated by a patterning threshold. Similar to highlanders and unlike lowlanders at sea-level, acclimatizing lowlanders respond to hypobaric hypoxia by decreasing their VRT instead of changing their ventilatory sensitivity to CO(2).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.237 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of PhysiologySame topicNeuroscience of respiration and sleepFrench-language works237,207