A novel application of capnography during controlled human exposure to air pollution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective was to determine the repeatability and stability of capnography interfaced with human exposure facility. METHODS: Capnographic wave signals were obtained from five healthy volunteers exposed to particle-free, filtered air during two consecutive 5 min intervals, 10 min apart, within the open and then the sealed and operational human exposure facility (HEF). Using a customized setup comprised of the Oridion Microcap portable capnograph, DA converter and AD card, the signal was acquired and saved as an ASCII file for subsequent processing. The minute ventilation (VE), respiratory rate (RR) and expiratory tidal volume (VTE) were recorded before and after capnographic recording and then averaged. Each capnographic tracing was analyzed for acceptable waves. From each recorded interval, 8 to 19 acceptable waves were selected and measured. The following wave parameters were obtained: total length and length of phase II and III, slope of phase II and III, area under the curve and area under phase III. In addition, we recorded signal measures including the mean, standard deviation, mode, minimum, maximum--which equals end-tidal CO2 (EtCO2), zero-corrected maximum and true RMS. RESULTS: Statistical analysis using a paired t-test for means showed no statistically significant changes of any wave parameters and wave signal measures, corrected for RR and VTE, comparing the measures when the HEF was open vs. sealed and operational. The coefficients of variation of the zero-corrected and uncorrected EtCO2, phase II absolute difference, signal mean, standard deviation and RMS were less than 10% despite a sub-atmospheric barometric pressure, and slightly higher temperature and relative humidity within the HEF when operational. CONCLUSION: We showed that a customized setup for the acquisition and processing of the capnographic wave signal, interfaced with HEF was stable and repeatable. Thus, we expect that analysis of capnographic waves in controlled human air pollution exposure studies is a feasible tool for characterization of cardio-pulmonary effects of such exposures.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".