Mechanisms of breathing instability in patients with obstructive sleep apnea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The response to chemical stimuli (chemical responsiveness) and the increases in respiratory drive required for arousal (arousal threshold) and for opening the airway without arousal (effective recruitment threshold) are important determinants of ventilatory instability and, hence, severity of obstructive apnea. We measured these variables in 21 obstructive apnea patients (apnea-hypopnea index 91 +/- 24 h(-1)) while on continuous-positive-airway pressure. During sleep, pressure was intermittently reduced (dial down) to induce severe hypopneas. Dial downs were done on room air and following approximately 30 s of breathing hypercapneic and/or hypoxic mixtures, which induced a range of ventilatory stimulation before dial down. Ventilation just before dial down and flow during dial down were measured. Chemical responsiveness, estimated as the percent increase in ventilation during the 5(th) breath following administration of 6% CO(2) combined with approximately 4% desaturation, was large (187 +/- 117%). Arousal threshold, estimated as the percent increase in ventilation associated with a 50% probability of arousal, ranged from 40% to >268% and was <120% in 12/21 patients, indicating that in many patients arousal occurs with modest changes in chemical drive. Effective recruitment threshold, estimated as percent increase in pre-dial-down ventilation associated with a significant increase in dial-down flow, ranged from zero to >174% and was <110% in 12/21 patients, indicating that in many patients reflex dilatation occurs with modest increases in drive. The two thresholds were not correlated. In most OSA patients, airway patency may be maintained with only modest increases in chemical drive, but instability results because of a low arousal threshold and a brisk increase in drive following brief reduction in alveolar ventilation.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".