MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2278223521 · doi:10.1152/jappl.2001.91.1.408

Dynamic ventilatory response to CO<sub>2</sub>in congestive heart failure patients with and without central sleep apnea

2001· article· en· W2278223521 on OpenAlexaff
Zbigniew L. Topor, Linda Johannson, Jerzy Kasprzyk, John E. Remmers

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Physiology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObstructive Sleep Apnea Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeart failurePeriodic breathingApneaMedicineCentral sleep apneaWakefulnessCardiologyAnesthesiaPopulationSleep apneaChemoreceptorInternal medicinePolysomnographyElectroencephalography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nonobstructive (i.e., central) sleep apnea is a major cause of sleep-disordered breathing in patients with stable congestive heart failure (CHF). Although central sleep apnea (CSA) is prevalent in this population, occurring in 40-50% of patients, its pathogenesis is poorly understood. Dynamic loop gain and delay of the chemoreflex response to CO(2) was measured during wakefulness in CHF patients with and without CSA by use of a pseudorandom binary CO(2) stimulus method. Use of a hyperoxic background minimized responses derived from peripheral chemoreceptors. The closed-loop and open-loop gain, estimated from the impulse response, was three times greater in patients with nocturnal CSA (n = 9) than in non-CSA patients (n = 9). Loop dynamics, estimated by the 95% response duration time, did not differ between the two groups of patients. We speculate that an increase in dynamic gain of the central chemoreflex response to CO(2) contributes to the genesis of CSA in patients with CHF.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations37
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied PhysiologySame topicObstructive Sleep Apnea ResearchFrench-language works237,207