Baroreflex control of muscle sympathetic nerve activity as a mechanism for persistent sympathoexcitation following acute hypoxia in humans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study tested the hypothesis that acute isocapnic hypoxia results in persistent resetting of the baroreflex to higher levels of muscle sympathetic nerve activity (MSNA), which outlasts the hypoxic stimulus. Cardiorespiratory measures were recorded in humans (26 ± 1 yr; n = 14; 3 women) during baseline, exposure to 20 min of isocapnic hypoxia, and for 5 min following termination of hypoxia. The spontaneous baroreflex threshold technique was used to determine the change in baroreflex function during and following 20 min of isocapnic hypoxia (oxyhemoglobin saturation = 80%). From the spontaneous baroreflex analysis, the linear regression between diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and sympathetic burst occurrence, the T50 (DBP with a 50% likelihood of a burst occurring), and DBP error signal (DBP minus the T50) provide indexes of baroreflex function. MSNA and DBP increased in hypoxia and remained elevated during posthypoxia relative to baseline (P < 0.05). The DBP error signal became progressively less negative (i.e., smaller difference between DBP and T50) in the hypoxia and posthypoxia periods (baseline: -3.9 ± 0.8 mmHg; hypoxia: -1.4 ± 0.6 mmHg; posthypoxia: 0.2 ± 0.6 mmHg; P < 0.05). Hypoxia caused no change in the slope of the baroreflex stimulus-response curve; however, there was a shift toward higher pressures that favored elevations in MSNA, which persisted posthypoxia. Our results indicate that there is a resetting of the baroreflex in hypoxia that outlasts the stimulus and provide further explanation for the complex control of MSNA following acute hypoxia.
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".