Chemosensitivity, Cardiovascular Risk, and the Ventilatory Response to Exercise in COPD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: COPD is associated with elevated cardiovascular risk and a potentiated ventilatory response to exercise. Enhanced carotid chemoreceptor (CC) activity/sensitivity is present in other clinical conditions, has been shown to contribute to sympathetic vasoconstrictor outflow, and is predictive of mortality. CC activity/sensitivity, and the resulting functional significance, has not been well examined in COPD. We hypothesized that CC activity/sensitivity would be elevated in COPD, and related to increased pulse wave velocity (a marker of CV risk) and the ventilatory response to exercise. METHODS: 30 COPD patients and 10 healthy age-matched controls were examined. Participants performed baseline cardiopulmonary exercise and pulmonary function testing. CC activity was later evaluated by the drop in ventilation with breathing 100% O2, and CC sensitivity was then assessed by the ventilatory response to hypoxia (ΔVE/ΔSpO2). Peripheral arterial stiffness was subsequently evaluated by measurement of pulse wave velocity (PWV) using applanation tonometry while the subjects were breathing room air, and then following chemoreceptor inhibition by breathing 100% O2 for 2 minutes. RESULTS: CC activity, CC sensitivity, PWV and the ventilatory response to exercise were all increased in COPD relative to controls. CC sensitivity was related to PWV; however, neither CC activity nor CC sensitivity was related to the ventilatory response to exercise in COPD. CC inhibition by breathing 100% O2 normalized PWV in COPD, while no effect was observed in controls. CONCLUSION: CC activity and sensitivity are elevated in COPD, and appear related to cardiovascular risk; however, CC activity/sensitivity does not contribute to the potentiated ventilatory response to exercise.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".