Ventilatory response to high inspired carbon dioxide concentrations in anesthetized dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The ventilation ( ) response to inspired CO(2) has been extensively studied, but rarely with concentrations >10%. AIMS: These experiments were performed to determine whether would increase correspondingly to higher concentrations and according to conventional chemoreceptor time delays. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We exposed anesthetized dogs acutely, with and without vagotomy and electrical stimulation of the right vagus, to 20-100% CO(2)-balance O(2) and to 0 and 10% O(2)-balance N(2). RESULTS: The time delays decreased and response magnitude increased with increasing concentrations (p<0.01), but at higher concentrations the time delays were shorter than expected, i.e., 0.5 s to double at 100% CO(2), with the response to 0% O(2) being ~3 s slower. Right vagotomy significantly reduced baseline breathing frequency (fR), increased tidal volume (VT) and increased the time delay by ~3 s. Bilateral vagotomy further reduced baseline fR and , and reduced the response to CO(2) and increased the time delay by ~12 s. Electro-stimulation of the peripheral right vagus while inspiring CO(2) caused a 13 s asystole and further reduced and delayed the response, especially after bilateral vagotomy, shifting the mode from VT to fR. CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate that airway or lung receptors responded to the rapid increase in lung H(+) and that vagal afferents and unimpaired circulation seem necessary for the initial rapid response to high CO(2) concentrations by receptors upstream from the aortic bodies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".