Hematocrit and Hemoglobin Levels of Nonhuman Apes at Moderate Altitudes: A Comparison with Humans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mortola, Jacopo P. and DeeAnn Wilfong. Hematocrit and hemoglobin levels of nonhuman apes at moderate altitudes: a comparison with humans. High Alt Med Biol. 17:323-335, 2016.-We asked to what extent the hematologic response (increase in hematocrit [Hct] and in blood hemoglobin concentration [Hb]) of humans to altitude hypoxia was shared by our closest relatives, the nonhuman apes. Data were collected from 29 specimens of 7 species of apes at 2073 m altitude (barometric pressure Pb = 598 mm Hg); additional data originated from apes located at a lower altitude (1493 m, Pb = 639 mm Hg). The human altitude profiles of Hct and Hb between sea level and 3000 m were constructed from a compilation of literature sources that (all combined) comprised data sets of 10,000-12,000 subjects for each gender. These human data were binned for 0-250 m altitude (sea level) and for each 500 m of progressively higher altitudes. Values of Hb and Hct of both men and women were significantly higher than at sea level at the 1500 bin (1250-1750 m); hence, the altitude threshold for the human hematological responses must be between 1000 and 1500 m. In the nonhuman apes, no increase in Hct or Hb was apparent at 1500 m; at 2000 m, the increase was significant only for the Hb of females. At either altitude in the group of nonhuman apes, the increase in Hct was much less than in humans, and that of Hb was significantly less at 1500 m. We conclude that lack of, or minimal, hematopoietic response to moderate altitude can occur in mammalian species that are not genetically adapted to high altitudes. Polycythemia is not a common response to altitude hypoxia and, at least at moderate altitudes, the degree of the human response may represent the exception among apes rather than the rule.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".