Hyperthermia significantly increases ventilatory response to isocapnic hypoxia in humans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To investigate the influence of hyperthermia on ventilatory responses to isocapnic hypoxia (iHVR). Methods and Study Design: Four males volunteered for the study that was approved by the SFU Office of Research Ethics. Each participant was instrumented for esophageal and surface skin temperatures and had his expired gases analyzed by indirect calorimetry. The protocol included two iHVR trials, one in normothermia and one in hyperthermia. Prior to each trial the participant rested in a seated position for 30 min. This period ended with collection of 5 min of pre‐iHVR ventilation and temperature data. Normothermic trials were performed with an esophageal temperature (T ES ) of ∼ 37.0°C, whereas during hyperthermic trials each participant was passively heated in a climatic chamber (50°C, 20% RH) to a T ES of ∼39.5°C. The iHVR trials were administered in a single step to a PETO 2 of 50 mmHg for 20 min. For both trials PETCO 2 was maintained 1 mmHg above the resting level that was established prior to the normothermic trial. Results: Mean pre iHVR ventilation during normothermia was 13.5±2.4 L/min (mean ± SD) and this increased to a mean of 20.4±2.1 L/min during the iHVR trial. Following passive heating in the hyperthermic trial, the pre iHVR ventilation was 26.5±4.8 L/min. This increased to a mean of 38.8±6.4 L/min during the hyperthermic iHVR trial. There were significant increases in pre iHVR ventilation (p=0.003) and mean ventilation (p=0.02) during the iHVR for hyperthermic relative to the normothermic condition. Conclusions: Hyperthermia in humans significantly elevates both ventilation and the ventilatory responses to isocapnic hypoxia. This study was supported by grants from Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and the Canadian Foundation for Innovation.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".