Sleep-disordered breathing in unilateral diaphragm paralysis or severe weakness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Few data exist concerning sleep in patients with hemidiaphragm paralysis or weakness. Traditionally, such patients are considered to sustain normal ventilation in sleep. In the present study, diaphragm strength was measured in order to identify patients with unilateral paralysis or severe weakness. Patients underwent polysomnography with additional recordings of the transoesophageal electromyogram (EMG) of the diaphragm and surface EMG of extra-diaphragmatic respiratory muscles. These data were compared with 11 normal, healthy subjects matched for sex, age and body mass index (BMI). In total, 11 patients (six males, mean+/-sd age 56.5+/-10.0 yrs, BMI 28.7+/-2.8 kg x m(-2)) with hemidiaphragm paralysis or severe weakness (unilateral twitch transdiaphragmatic pressure 3.3+/-1.7 cmH(2)O (0.33+/-0.17 kPa) were studied. They had a mean+/-sd respiratory disturbance index of 8.1+/-10.1 events x h(-1) during non-rapid eye movement (NREM) sleep and 26.0+/-17.8 events x h(-1) during rapid eye movement (REM) sleep (control groups 0.4+/-0.4 and 0.7+/-0.9 events x h(-1), respectively). The diaphragm EMG, as a percentage of maximum, was double that of the control group in NREM sleep (15.3+/-5.3 versus 8.9+/-4.9% max, respectively) and increased in REM sleep (20.0+/-6.9% max), while normal subjects sustained the same level of activation (6.2+/-3.1% max). Patients with unilateral diaphragm dysfunction are at risk of developing sleep-disordered breathing during rapid eye movement sleep. The diaphragm electromyogram, reflecting neural respiratory drive, is doubled in patients compared with normal subjects, and increases further in rapid eye movement sleep.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".