Linkage of hiccup with heartbeat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We explored a possible link between the cardiac cycle and the timing of recurrent hiccups in 10 patients with chronic, intractable hiccups. Recordings made during daytime naps in a sleep laboratory included sleep state; electrocardiogram; and respiration by means of a thermistor to detect airflow, bands around the rib cage and abdomen to assess expansion, and a bipolar surface electrode electromyogram over parasternal intercostal muscles. Hiccups could be detected on the abdominal bands and the parasternal electromyogram. The time of occurrence of each hiccup and each R wave in a continuous tracing of 100 or more hiccups were recorded and analyzed together with semiquantitive estimates of the phase of hiccup respiration. Whereas the hiccup rate ranged from approximately one-third to one-eighth of heart rate and was more variable than heart rate, hiccups showed a tendency, stronger in some subjects than others, to occur in midsystole. Variation in R-wave-R-wave (R-R) interval in association with hiccups was found in five patients. In three of these patients, hiccups were synchronized with respiration so that the cyclic change in R-R interval posthiccup could be explained as sinus arrhythmia, but, in two patients, the hiccups were not synchronized with respiration, so that hiccups are most likely responsible for the variation in heart rate. Also, the variation of R-R interval with hiccups suggests that there is some phasic autonomic efferent activity associated with hiccups.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".