The effect of oxygen on dynamic cerebral autoregulation: critical role of hypocapnia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hypoxia is known to impair cerebral autoregulation (CA). Previous studies indicate that CA is profoundly affected by cerebrovascular tone, which is largely determined by the partial pressure of arterial O(2) and CO(2). However, hypoxic-induced hyperventilation via respiratory chemoreflex activation causes hypocapnia, which may influence CA independent of partial pressure of arterial O(2). To identify the effect of O(2) on dynamic cerebral blood flow regulation, we examined the influence of normoxia, isocapnia hyperoxia, hypoxia, and hypoxia with consequent hypocapnia on dynamic CA. We measured heart rate, blood pressure, ventilatory parameters, and middle cerebral artery blood velocity (transcranial Doppler). Dynamic CA was assessed (n = 9) during each of four randomly assigned respiratory interventions: 1) normoxia (21% O(2)); 2) isocapnic hyperoxia (40% O(2)); 3) isocapnic hypoxia (14% O(2)); and 4) hypocapnic hypoxia (14% O(2)). During each condition, the rate of cerebral regulation (RoR), an established index of dynamic CA, was estimated during bilateral thigh cuff-induced transient hypotension. The RoR was unaltered during isocapnic hyperoxia. Isocapnic hypoxia attenuated the RoR (0.202 +/- 0.003/s; 27%; P = 0.043), indicating impairment in dynamic CA. In contrast, hypocapnic hypoxia increased RoR (0.444 +/- 0.069/s) from normoxia (0.311 +/- 0.054/s; +55%; P = 0.041). These findings indicated that hypoxia disrupts dynamic CA, but hypocapnia augments the dynamic CA response. Because hypocapnia is a consequence of hypoxic-induced chemoreflex activation, it may provide a teleological means to effectively maintain dynamic CA in the face of prevailing arterial hypoxemia.
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) | 0.000 | 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".