Influence of CO<sub>2</sub> on upper airway muscles and chest wall/diaphragm corticomotor responses assessed by transcranial magnetic stimulation in awake healthy subjects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Functional interaction between upper airway (UA) dilator muscles and the diaphragm is crucial in the maintenance of UA patency. This interaction could be altered by increasing respiratory drive. The aim of our study was to compare the effects of hypercapnic stimulation on diaphragm and genioglossus corticomotor responses to transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). METHODS: 10 self-reported healthy men (32 ± 9 yr; body mass index = 24 ± 3 kg/m(-2)) breathed, in random order, room air or 5% and then 7% Fi(CO(2)), both balanced with pure O(2). Assessments included ventilatory variables, isoflow UA resistance (at 300 ml/s), measurement of lower chest wall/diaphragm (LCW/diaphragm), and genioglossus motor threshold (MT) and motor-evoked potential (MEP) characteristics. TMS twitches were applied during early inspiration and end expiration at stimulation intensity 30% above LCW/diaphragm and genioglossus MT. RESULTS: Compared with room air, CO(2) inhalation significantly augmented minute ventilation, maximal inspiratory flow, tidal volume, and tidal volume/respiratory time ratio. UA resistance was unchanged with CO(2) inhalation. During 7% CO(2) breathing, LCW/diaphragm MT decreased by 9.6 ± 10.1% whereas genioglossus MT increased by 7.2 ± 9%. CO(2)-induced ventilatory stimulation led to elevation of LCW/diaphragm MEP amplitudes during inspiration but not during expiration. LCW/diaphragm MEP latencies remained unaltered both during inspiration and expiration. Genioglossus MEP latencies and amplitudes were unchanged with CO(2). CONCLUSION: In awake, healthy subjects, CO(2)-induced hyperventilation is associated with heightened LCW/diaphragm corticomotor activation without modulating genioglossus MEP responses. This imbalance may promote UA instability during increased respiratory drive.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".