MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Effects Of Reflux Laryngitis On Non-nutritive Swallowing In Newborn Lambs

2010· article· en· W2319747007 on OpenAlexafffund
Simon Brisebois, Nathalie Samson, Pierre‐Hugues Fortier, Alexandre A. Doueik, Anne‐Marie Carreau, Jean‐Philippe Gagné, Jean‐Paul Praud

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastroesophageal reflux and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsLaryngitisSwallowingMedicineAnesthesiaRespiratory systemCardiorespiratory fitnessRefluxApneaLaryngeal DiseasesLarynxInternal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reflux laryngitis in infants may be involved not only in laryngeal disorders, but also in disorders of cardiorespiratory control through its impact on laryngeal function.Our objective was to study the effect of reflux laryngitis on non-nutritive swallowing (NNS) and NNS-breathing coordination.Two groups of six newborn lambs, randomized into laryngitis and control groups, were surgically instrumented for recording states of alertness, swallowing and cardiorespiratory variables without sedation.A mild to moderate reflux laryngitis was induced in lambs from the experimental group.A significant decrease in the number of NNS bursts and apneas was observed in the laryngitis group in active sleep (p = 0.03).In addition, lower heart and respiratory rates, as well as prolonged apnea duration (p < 0.0001) were observed.No physiologically significant alterations in NNS-breathing coordination were observed in the laryngitis group.We conclude that a mild to moderate reflux laryngitis alters NNS burst frequency and autonomous control of cardiac activity and respiration in lambs.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGastroesophageal reflux and treatments→French-language works237,207→