Emerging principles and neural substrates underlying tonic sleep-state-dependent influences on respiratory motor activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Respiratory muscles with dual respiratory and non-respiratory functions (e.g. the pharyngeal and intercostal muscles) show greater suppression of activity in sleep than the diaphragm, a muscle almost entirely devoted to respiratory function. This sleep-related suppression of activity is most apparent in the tonic component of motor activity, which has functional implications of a more collapsible upper airspace in the case of pharyngeal muscles, and decreased functional residual capacity in the case of intercostal muscles. A major source of tonic drive to respiratory motoneurons originates from neurons intimately involved in states of brain arousal, i.e. neurons not classically involved in generating respiratory rhythm and pattern per se. The tonic drive to hypoglossal motoneurons, a respiratory motor pool with both respiratory and non-respiratory functions, is mediated principally by noradrenergic and glutamatergic inputs, these constituting the essential components of the wakefulness stimulus. These tonic excitatory drives are opposed by tonic inhibitory glycinergic and gamma-amino butyric acid (GABA) inputs that constrain the level of respiratory-related motor activity, with the balance determining net motor tone. In sleep, the excitatory inputs are withdrawn and GABA release into the brainstem is increased, thus decreasing respiratory motor tone and predisposing susceptible individuals to hypoventilation and obstructive sleep apnoea.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".