Effects of hypoxia and hypercapnia on nonnutritive swallowing in newborn lambs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to investigate the effect of hypercapnia and hypoxia on apnea and nonnutritive swallowing (NNS) frequency, as well as on the coordination between NNS and phases of the respiratory cycle in newborn lambs, while taking into account the potential effects of states of alertness. Six lambs were chronically instrumented for recording electroencephalogram, eye movements, diaphragm and thyroarytenoid muscle (a glottal adductor) activity, nasal airflow, and electrocardiogram. Polysomnographic recordings were performed in nonsedated lambs exposed to air (control), 10% O(2), and 5% CO(2) in a random order at 3, 4, and 5 days of age. Although hypercapnia decreased apnea frequency in wakefulness and active sleep (P = 0.002 vs. air and hypoxia), hypoxia had no significant effect on apnea. In addition, although hypercapnia increased NNS frequency during wakefulness and quiet sleep (P < 0.005 vs. air and hypoxia), hypoxia tended to decrease NNS frequency. Finally, only hypercapnia altered NNS-breathing coordination by increasing NNS at the transition from inspiration to expiration (ie-type NNS; P < 0.001 vs. air and hypoxia). In conclusion, whereas hypercapnia increases overall NNS frequency by specifically increasing ie-type NNS, hypoxia has the inverse tendency. Results were identical in all three states of alertness.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".