Concomitant ventilatory and circulatory functions of the diaphragm and abdominal muscles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Expulsive maneuvers (EMs) caused by simultaneous contraction of diaphragm and abdominal muscles shift substantial quantities of blood from the splanchnic circulation to the extremities. This suggests that the diaphragm assisted by abdominal muscles might accomplish ventilation and circulation simultaneously by repeated EMs. We tested this hypothesis in normal subjects by measuring changes (Δ) in body volume (Vb) by whole body plethysmography simultaneously with changes in trunk volume (Vtr) by optoelectronic plethysmography, which measures the same parameters as whole body plethysmography plus the volume of blood shifts (Vbs) between trunk and extremities: Vbs = ΔVtr-ΔVb. We also measured abdominal pressure, pleural pressure, the arterial pressure wave, and cardiac output (Qc). EMs with abdominal pressure ~100 cmH(2)O for 1 s, followed by 2-s relaxations, repeated over 90 s, produced a "stroke volume" from the splanchnic bed of 0.35 ± 0.07 (SD) liter, an output of 6.84 ± 0.75 l/min compared with a resting Qc of 5.59 ± 1.14 l/min. Refilling during relaxation was complete, and the splanchnic bed did not progressively empty. Diastolic pressure increased by 25 mmHg during each EM. Between EMs, Qc increased to 7.09 ± 1.14 l/min due to increased stroke volume and heart rate. The circulatory function of the diaphragm assisted by simultaneous contractions of abdominal muscles with appropriate pressure and duration at 20 min(-1) can produce a circulatory output as great as resting Qc, as well as ventilation. These combined functions of the diaphragm have potential for cardiopulmonary resuscitation. The abdominal circulatory pump can act as an auxiliary heart.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".