The Contribution of Chemoreflex Drives to Resting Breathing in Man
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The contribution of automatic drives to breathing at rest, relative to behavioural drives such as "wakefulness", has been a subject of debate. We measured the combined central and peripheral chemoreflex contribution to resting ventilation using a modified rebreathing method that included a prior hyperventilation and addition of oxygen to maintain isoxia at a P(ET,O2) (end-tidal partial pressure of oxygen) of 100 mmHg. During rebreathing, ventilation was unrelated to P(ET,CO2) (end-tidal partial pressure of carbon dioxide) in the hypocapnic range, but after a threshold P(ET,CO2) was exceeded, ventilation increased linearly with P(ET,CO2). We considered the sub-threshold ventilation to be an estimate of the behavioural drives to breathe (mean +/- S.E.M. = 3.1 +/- 0.5 l min(-1)), and compared it to ventilation at rest (mean +/- S.E.M. = 9.1 +/- 0.7 l min(-1)). The difference was significant (Student's paired t test, P < 0.001). We also considered the threshold P(CO2) observed during rebreathing to be an estimate of the chemoreflex threshold at rest (mean +/- S.E.M. = 42.0 +/- 0.5 mmHg). However, P(ET,CO2) during rebreathing estimates mixed venous or tissue P(CO2), whereas the resting P(ET,CO2) during resting breathing estimates P(a,CO2) (arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide). The chemoreflex threshold measured during rebreathing was therefore reduced by the difference in P(ET,CO2) at rest and at the start of rebreathing (the plateau estimates the mixed venous P(CO2) at rest) in order to make comparisons. The corrected chemoreflex thresholds (mean +/- S.E.M. = 26.0 +/- 0.9 mmHg) were significantly less (paired Student's t test, P < 0.001) than the resting P(ET,CO2) values (mean +/- S.E.M. = 34.3 +/- 0.5 mmHg). We conclude that both the behavioural and chemoreflex drives contribute to resting ventilation. Experimental Physiology (2001) 86.1, 109-116.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".