Brain stem P<scp>o</scp><sub>2</sub>and pH of the working heart-brain stem preparation during vascular perfusion with aqueous medium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rat working heart-brain stem preparation (WHBP) is an in situ preparation having many of the advantages associated with in vitro preparations while retaining cardiovascular response functionality and an eupnoeic respiratory motor pattern. The preparation is perfused arterially with an aqueous medium having a much lower oxygen-carrying capacity than blood. To evaluate the efficacy of the artificial perfusion in providing adequate gas exchange within the brain stem, we used polarographic PO(2) and pH microelectrodes to determine the tissue PO(2) and pH of the medulla oblongata at various depths. When the perfusate was equilibrated with 5% CO(2) and 95% O(2), average tissue PO(2) was 294 Torr and no hypoxic areas were encountered. Tissue pH was remarkably uniform throughout the tissue, and on average was only 0.04 +/- 0.02 pH units more acidic than that of the perfusate. Increasing the PCO(2) of the perfusate increased tissue PO(2) and decreased arterial resistance. Decreasing perfusate PCO(2) (while keeping pH constant) decreased tissue PO(2) and reduced the respiratory activity. These results suggest that arterial PCO(2), independent of arterial pH, is an essential variable in determining both respiratory drive and cerebrovascular perfusion. We conclude that the medulla of the WHBP is oxygenated and within a physiological pH, which accounts for the eupneic pattern of respiratory motor activity it generates. Furthermore, this preparation may be a useful model for exploring mechanisms of central chemoreception as well as the dynamics of the cerebral vasculature responses following changes in blood gases.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".