Is there a link between intermittent hypoxia‐induced respiratory plasticity and obstructive sleep apnoea?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although neuroplasticity is an important property of the respiratory motor control system, its existence has been appreciated only in recent years and, as a result, its functional significance is not completely understood. The most frequently studied models of respiratory plasticity is respiratory long-term facilitation (LTF) following acute intermittent hypoxia and enhanced LTF following chronic intermittent hypoxia. Since intermittent hypoxia is a prominent feature of sleep-disordered breathing, LTF and/or enhanced LTF may compensate for factors that predispose to sleep-disordered breathing, particularly during obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA). Long-term facilitation has been studied most frequently in rats, and exhibits interesting properties consistent with a role in stabilizing breathing during sleep. Specifically, LTF: (1) is prominent in upper airway respiratory motor activity, suggesting that it stabilizes upper airways and maintains airway patency; (2) is most prominent during sleep in unanaesthetized rats; and (3) exhibits sexual dimorphism (greatest in young male and middle-aged female rats; smallest in middle-aged male and young female rats). Although these features are consistent with the hypothesis that upper airway LTF minimizes the prevalence of OSA in humans, there is little direct evidence for such an effect. Here we review advances in our understanding of LTF and its underlying mechanisms and present evidence concerning a potential role for LTF in maintaining upper airway patency, stabilizing breathing and preventing OSA in humans. Regardless of the relationship between LTF and OSA, a detailed understanding of cellular and synaptic mechanisms that underlie LTF may guide the development of new drugs to regulate upper airway tone, thereby offsetting the tendency for upper airway collapse characteristic of heavy snoring and OSA.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".