MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Laryngeal chemoreflexes induced by acid, water, and saline in nonsedated newborn lambs during quiet sleep

2005· article· en· W2099313539 on OpenAlexaff
Marie St‐Hilaire, Élise Nsegbe, Karine Gagnon-Gervais, Nathalie Samson, François Moreau-Bussière, Pierre‐Hugues Fortier, Jean‐Paul Praud

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Physiology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience of respiration and sleep
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnesthesiaDistilled waterSalineHeart rateRespiratory rateBradycardiaMedicineRespiratory systemCitric acidChemistryInternal medicineBlood pressureChromatographyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Laryngeal chemoreflexes (LCR) are triggered by the contact of assorted liquids with the laryngeal mucosa. In the neonatal period, the immature LCR consist primarily of apnea and bradycardia, which at times can be life threatening. The aim of this study was to assess LCR induction in nonsedated, newborn full-term lambs by several acid solutions, compared with distilled water and saline. Twelve lambs were instrumented for recording of glottal adductor and diaphragm EMG, EEG, eye movements, heart rate, systemic arterial pressure, and respiratory movements. LCR were induced during quiet sleep by the injection (0.5 ml) of saline, distilled water or two acid solutions (HCl and citric acid, pH 2, diluted in either water or saline). A chronic supraglottal catheter was used to inject the solutions in a random order. Distilled water and acid solutions did not induce any significant decrease in heart rate or respiratory rate. However, significant lower airway protective responses (swallowing, cough, and arousal) were observed after distilled water and especially acid solution administration. In conclusion, LCR in full-term lambs, particularly with acid solutions, are merely characterized by lower airway protective responses resembling mature LCR reported in adult mammals.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.476

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations41
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied PhysiologySame topicNeuroscience of respiration and sleepFrench-language works237,207