Impediment in upper airway stabilizing forces assessed by phrenic nerve stimulation in sleep apnea patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The forces developed during inspiration play a key role in determining upper airway stability and the occurrence of nocturnal breathing disorders. Phrenic nerve stimulation applied during wakefulness is a unique tool to assess Upper airway dynamic properties and to measure the overall mechanical effects of the inspiratory process on UA stability. OBJECTIVES: To compare the flow/pressure responses to inspiratory and expiratory twitches between sleep apnea subjects and normal subjects. METHODS: Inspiratory and expiratory twitches using magnetic nerve stimulation completed in eleven untreated sleep apnea subjects and ten normal subjects. RESULTS: In both groups, higher flow and pressure were reached during inspiratory twitches. The two groups showed no differences in expiratory twitch parameters. During inspiration, the pressure at which flow-limitation occurred was more negative in normals than in apneic subjects, but not reaching significance (p = 0.07). The relationship between pharyngeal pressure and flow adequately fitted with a polynomial regression model providing a measurement of upper airway critical pressure during twitch. This pressure significantly decreased in normals from expiratory to inspiratory twitches (-11.1 +/- 1.6 and -15.7 +/- 1.0 cm H2O respectively, 95% CI 1.6-7.6, p < 0.01), with no significant difference between the two measurements in apneic subjects. The inspiratory/expiratory difference in critical pressure was significantly correlated with the frequency of nocturnal breathing disorders. CONCLUSION: Inspiratory-related upper airway dilating forces are impeded in sleep apnea patients.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".