Consequences of capsaicin treatment on pulmonary vagal reflexes and chemoreceptor activity in lambs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that capsaicin treatment in lambs selectively inhibits bronchopulmonary C-fiber function but does not alter other vagal pulmonary receptor functions or peripheral and central chemoreceptor functions. Eleven lambs were randomized to receive a subcutaneous injection of either 25 mg/kg capsaicin (6 lambs) or solvent (5 lambs) under general anesthesia. Capsaicin-treated lambs did not demonstrate the classical ventilatory response consistently observed in response to capsaicin bolus intravenous injection in control lambs. Moreover, the ventilatory responses to stimulation of the rapidly adapting pulmonary stretch receptors (intratracheal water instillation) and slowly adapting pulmonary stretch receptors (Hering-Breuer inflation reflex) were similar in both groups of lambs. Finally, the ventilatory responses to various stimuli and depressants of carotid body activity and to central chemoreceptor stimulation (CO(2) rebreathing) were identical in control and capsaicin-treated lambs. We conclude that 25 mg/kg capsaicin treatment in lambs selectively inhibits bronchopulmonary C-fiber function without significantly affecting the other vagal pulmonary receptor functions or that of peripheral and central chemoreceptors.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".