Altitude matters: differences in cardiovascular and respiratory responses to hypoxia in bar-headed geese reared at high and low altitudes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bar-headed geese (Anser indicus) fly at high altitudes during their migration across the Himalayas and Tibetan plateau. However, we know relatively little about whether rearing at high altitude (i.e. phenotypic plasticity) facilitates this impressive feat because most of what is known about their physiology comes from studies performed at sea level. To provide this information, a comprehensive analysis of metabolic, cardiovascular and ventilatory responses to progressive decreases in the equivalent fractional composition of inspired oxygen (FiO2 : 0.21, 0.12, 0.09, 0.07 and 0.05) was made on bar-headed geese reared at either high altitude (3200 m) or low altitude (0 m) and on barnacle geese (Branta leucopsis), a low-altitude migrating species, reared at low altitude (0 m). Bar-headed geese reared at high altitude exhibited lower metabolic rates and a modestly increased hypoxic ventilatory response compared with low-altitude-reared bar-headed geese. Although the in vivo oxygen equilibrium curves and blood-oxygen carrying capacity did not differ between the two bar-headed goose study groups, the blood-oxygen carrying capacity was higher than that of barnacle geese. Resting cardiac output also did not differ between groups and increased at least twofold during progressive hypoxia, initially as a result of increases in stroke volume. However, cardiac output increased at a higher FiO2 threshold in bar-headed geese raised at high altitude. Thus, bar-headed geese reared at high altitude exhibited a reduced oxygen demand at rest and a modest but significant increase in oxygen uptake and delivery during progressive hypoxia compared with bar-headed geese reared at low altitude.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".