Ventilatory restraint of sympathetic activity during chemoreflex stress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The within-breath modulation of muscle sympathetic nerve activity (MSNA) is well established, with greater activity occurring during expiration and less during inspiration. Whether ventilation per se affects the longer-term (i.e., minute-to-minute) regulation of MSNA has not been determined. We sought to define the specific role of ventilation in regulating sympathetic activation during chemoreflex activation, where both ventilation and MSNA are increased. Ten young healthy subjects performed both asphyxic rebreathing and repeated, rebreathing apneas to cause the same magnitude of chemoreflex stress in the presence or absence of ventilation. Both protocols caused increases in sympathetic burst frequency, burst amplitude, and burst incidence. However, burst frequency was increased more during repeated apneas (12 ± 6 to 25 ± 7 bursts/min) compared with rebreathing (12 ± 5 to 17 ± 7 bursts/min; P < 0.001) due to a greater burst incidence during apneas (36 ± 11 bursts/100 heart beats) vs. rebreathing (26 ± 8 bursts/100 heart beats, P < 0.001). The sympathetic gain to chemoreflex stress was also larger during repeated apneas (2.29 ± 1.29 au/% desaturation) compared with rebreathing (1.44 ± 0.53 au/% desaturation, P < 0.05). The augmented sympathetic response during apneas was associated with a larger pressor response and total peripheral resistance compared with rebreathing. These data demonstrate that ventilation per se restrains sympathetic activation during chemoreflex activation. Further, the augmented sympathetic response during apneas was associated with greater cardiovascular stress and may be relevant to the cardiovascular pathology associated with sleep-disordered breathing.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".