Chemoreflex control of breathing during wakefulness in healthy men and women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study used a modified CO(2) rebreathing procedure to examine the effect of gender on the chemoreflex control of breathing during wakefulness in healthy men (n = 14) and women (n = 14). Women were tested in the follicular phase of the menstrual cycle. During rebreathing trials, subjects hyperventilated to reduce the partial pressure of end-tidal CO(2) (Pet(CO(2))) below 25 Torr and were then switched to a rebreathing bag containing a normocapnic hypoxic or hyperoxic gas mixture. During the trial, Pet(CO(2)) increased, while O(2) was maintained at a constant level. The point at which ventilation began to rise as Pet(CO(2)) increased was identified as the ventilatory recruitment threshold (VRT). Ventilation below the VRT was measured, and the slope of the ventilatory response above the VRT was determined. Gender had no effect on the hyperoxic or hypoxic VRT for CO(2). Central chemoreflex sensitivity was significantly greater in men than women but not after correction for forced vital capacity. Measures of peripheral chemoreflex sensitivity were similar between genders. However, the slope of the tidal volume (Vt) response to hyperoxic and hypoxic CO(2) rebreathing (corrected and uncorrected) was greater in men than women, respectively. We conclude that central chemoreflex sensitivity is greater in men compared with women as reflected by differences in ventilatory (uncorrected) and Vt (corrected and uncorrected) responses to CO(2). However, gender has no significant effect on the central chemoreflex VRT for CO(2). The peripheral chemoreflex control of breathing during wakefulness is similar between men and women.
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) | 0.002 | 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".