MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

CO<sub>2</sub> does not affect passive exercise ventilatory decline

2003· article· en· W2232059199 on OpenAlexaff
Harold J. Bell, James Duffin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Physiology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic Control
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHyperpneaVentilation (architecture)AfferentMedicinePhysical exerciseVentilatory thresholdModerate exerciseAnesthesiaPhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationCardiologyRespiratory systemInternal medicineHeart rateBlood pressureVO2 max

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Breathing increases abruptly at the start of passive exercise, stimulated by afferent feedback from the moving limbs, and declines toward a steady-state hyperpnea as exercise continues. This decline has been attributed to decreased arterial CO2 levels and adaptation in afferent feedback; however, the relative importance of these two mechanisms is unknown. To address this issue, we compared ventilatory responses to 5 min of passive leg extension exercise performed on 10 awake human subjects (6 men and 4 women) in isocapnic and poikilocapnic conditions. End-tidal Pco2 decreased significantly during poikilocapnic (Delta = -1.5 +/- 0.5 Torr, P < 0.001), but not isocapnic, passive exercise. Despite this difference, the ventilatory responses to passive exercise were not different between the two conditions. Using the fast changes in ventilation at the start (5.46 +/- 0.40 l/min, P < 0.001) and end (3.72 +/- 0.33 l/min, P < 0.001) of passive exercise as measures of the drive to breathe from afferent feedback, we found a decline of 68%. We conclude that the decline in ventilation during passive exercise is due to an adaptation in the afferent feedback from the moving limbs, not a decline in CO2 levels.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.498

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied PhysiologySame topicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic ControlFrench-language works237,207