Resonance as the Mechanism of Daytime Periodic Breathing in Patients with Heart Failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Rationale In patients with chronic heart failure, daytime oscillatory breathing at rest is associated with a high risk of mortality. Experimental evidence, including exaggerated ventilatory responses to CO2 and prolonged circulation time, implicates the ventilatory control system and suggests feedback instability (loop gain > 1) is responsible. However, daytime oscillatory patterns often appear remarkably irregular versus classic instability (Cheyne-Stokes respiration), suggesting our mechanistic understanding is limited. Objectives We propose that daytime ventilatory oscillations generally result from a chemoreflex resonance, in which spontaneous biological variations in ventilatory drive repeatedly induce temporary and irregular ringing effects. Importantly, the ease with which spontaneous biological variations induce irregular oscillations (resonance “strength”) rises profoundly as loop gain rises toward 1. We tested this hypothesis through a comparison of mathematical predictions against actual measurements in patients with heart failure and healthy control subjects. Methods In 25 patients with chronic heart failure and 25 control subjects, we examined spontaneous oscillations in ventilation and separately quantified loop gain using dynamic inspired CO2 stimulation. Measurements and Main Results Resonance was detected in 24 of 25 patients with heart failure and 18 of 25 control subjects. With increased loop gain—consequent to increased chemosensitivity and delay—the strength of spontaneous oscillations increased precipitously as predicted (r = 0.88), yielding larger (r = 0.78) and more regular (interpeak interval SD, r = −0.68) oscillations (P < 0.001 for all, both groups combined). Conclusions Our study elucidates the mechanism underlying daytime ventilatory oscillations in heart failure and provides a means to measure and interpret these oscillations to reveal the underlying chemoreflex hypersensitivity and reduced stability that foretells mortality in this population.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".