MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Neonatal intermittent hypoxia induces sex‐specific enhancement of hypoxic ventilatory response in rat pups

2008· article· en· W2294223661 on OpenAlexaff
Cécile Julien, Lalah Niane, Aïda Bairam, Vincent Joseph

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience of respiration and sleep
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHypoxic ventilatory responseHypoxia (environmental)PlethysmographRespiratory systemMedicineInternal medicineEndocrinologyIntermittent hypoxiaVentilation (architecture)AnesthesiaChemistryOxygen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We tested the hypothesis that chronic intermittent hypoxia induces gender‐specific effects on hypoxic ventilatory response (HVR) in newborn rats. Rat pups were exposed with their dams to normal room air (controls) or to chronic intermittent hypoxia (IH: O 2 levels cycled between 21% and 5% every 10 minutes for 1h followed by 1h under normoxia, 24h/day) during postnatal days 1–10. Minute ventilation (VE) was measured in 10‐day‐old male and female rat pups using whole‐body plethysmography. To assess HVR, VE was measured in normoxia and during acute hypoxia (5% achieved in 60 seconds), and expressed as % changes vs. baseline. IH induced a growth‐delay of similar magnitude in males and females. Under normoxia, respiratory frequency was slightly lower in both male and female IH rats vs. controls, but VE was similar. In males, HVR was higher in IH rats (+57±13%) vs. controls (+32±8%, p=0,001). In females, HVR was similar between neonatal IH (+35±13%) and control rats (+42±7%, p=ns). This study shows that neonatal IH increases HVR specifically in male rat pups, and suggests that apneas may have sex‐specific effects on respiratory control in neonates. (Founded by FRSQ, Sick kids foundation/CIHR).

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicNeuroscience of respiration and sleep→French-language works237,207→