Ventilatory responses to hypercapnia and hypoxia in relatives of patients with the obesity hypoventilation syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is unclear why some morbidly obese individuals have waking alveolar hypoventilation while others with similar obesity do not. Some evidence suggests that patients with the obesity hypoventilation syndrome (OHS) may have a measurable premorbid impairment of ventilatory chemoresponsiveness. Such an impairment of ventilatory chemoresponsiveness in OHS, however, may be an acquired and reversible consequence of severe obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA). We hypothesised that, in patients with OHS who do not have coincident severe OSA, there may be a familial impairment in ventilatory responses to hypoxia and hypercapnia. METHODS: Sixteen first degree relatives of seven patients with OHS without severe OSA (mean (SD) age 40 (16) years, body mass index (BMI) 30 (6) kg/m(2)) and 16 subjects matched for age and BMI without OHS or OSA were studied. Selection criteria included normal arterial blood gas tensions and lung function tests and absence of sleep apnoea on overnight polysomnography. Ventilatory responses to isocapnic hypoxia and to hyperoxic hypercapnia were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: The slope of the ventilatory response to hypercapnia was similar in the relatives (mean 2.33 l/min/mm Hg) and in the control subjects (2.12 l/min/mm Hg), mean difference 0.2 l/min/mm Hg, 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference -0.5 to 0.9 l/min/mm Hg, p=0.5. The hypoxic ventilatory response was also similar between the two groups (slope factor A: 379.1 l/min * mm Hg for relatives and 373.4 l/min * mm Hg for controls; mean difference 5.7 l/min * mm Hg; 95% CI -282 to 293 l/min * mm Hg, p=0.7; slope of the linear regression line of the fall in oxygen saturation and increase in minute ventilation: 2.01 l/min/% desaturation in relatives, 1.15 l/min/% desaturation in controls; mean difference 0. 5 l/min/% desaturation; 95% CI -1.7 to 0.7 l/min/% desaturation, p=0. 8). CONCLUSION: There is no evidence of impaired ventilatory chemoresponsiveness in first degree relatives of patients with OHS compared with age and BMI matched control subjects.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".