Effects of inspiratory flow on diaphragmatic motor output in normal subjects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increasing inspiratory flow (V) has been shown to shorten neural inspiratory time (TI(n)) in normal subjects breathing on a mechanical ventilator, but the effect of V on respiratory motor output before inspiratory termination has not previously been studied in humans. While breathing spontaneously on a mechanical ventilator, eight normal subjects were intermittently exposed to 200-ms-duration positive pressure pulses of different amplitudes at the onset of inspiration. Based on the increase in V above control breaths (DeltaV), trials were grouped into small, medium, and large groups (mean DeltaV: 0.51, 1.11, and 1.65 l/s, respectively). We measured TI(n), transdiaphragmatic pressure (Pdi), and electrical activity (electromyogram) of the diaphragm (EMGdi). Transient increases in V caused shortening of TI(n) from 1.34 to 1.10 (not significant), 1.55 to 1.11 (P < 0.005), and 1.58 to 1.17 s (P < 0. 005) in the small, medium, and large DeltaV groups, respectively. EMGdi measured at end TI(n) of the pulse breaths was 131 (P < 0.05), 142, and 155% (P < 0.05) of the EMGdi of the control breaths at an identical time point in the small, medium, and large trials, respectively. The latency of the excitation was 126 +/- 42 (SD) ms, consistent with a reflex effect. Increasing V had two countervailing effects on Pdi: 1) a depressant mechanical effect due primarily to the force-length (11.2 cmH(2)O/l) relation of the diaphragm, and 2) an increase in diaphragm activation. For the eight subjects, mean peak Pdi did not change significantly, but there was significant intersubject variability, reflecting variability in the strength of the excitation reflex. We conclude that increasing inspiratory V causes a graded facilitation of EMGdi, which serves to counteract the negative effect of the force-length relation on Pdi.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".