Origins of the inhibiting effects of nasal CPAP on nonnutritive swallowing in newborn lambs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study investigated the mechanism by which continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) suppresses nonnutritive swallowing (NNS) during quiet sleep (QS) in newborn lambs. Eighteen full-term lambs were chronically instrumented and evenly distributed into three separate groups to determine the extent to which modulation of NNS may be attributed to stimulation of upper airway and/or bronchopulmonary mechanoreceptors. Six lambs were tracheotomized, six other lambs underwent a two-step bilateral intrathoracic vagotomy, and the remaining six lambs underwent chronic laryngotracheal separation (isolated upper airway group). Forty-eight hours after surgery, each nonsedated lamb underwent polysomnographic recordings on three consecutive days. States of alertness, NNS and respiratory movements were recorded. Results demonstrate that a CPAP of 6 cmH(2)O inhibited NNS during QS while administered directly on the lower airways and that bivagotomy prevented this inhibition. However, application of CPAP on the upper airways only also inhibited NNS during QS. Finally, the application of a CPAP of 6 cmH(2)O had no systematic effect on NNS-breathing coordination (assessed by the respiratory phase preceding and following NNS). In conclusion, our results suggest that bronchopulmonary receptors are implicated in the inhibiting effects of nasal CPAP of 6 cmH(2)O on NNS in all our experimental conditions, whereas upper airway receptors are only implicated in certain conditions.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".