MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effect of increasing cerebral blood flow on sleep architecture at high altitude

2016· article· en· W2553970844 on OpenAlexaff
Samuel J. E. Lucas, Katie Burgess, Kate E. Sprecher, Joseph E. Donnelly, Aparna Basnet, Philip N. Ainslie, Keith R. Burgess

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHigh Altitude and Hypoxia
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCerebral blood flowPlaceboPolysomnographyAnesthesiaAcetazolamideSleep (system call)Sleep StagesBlood flowEffects of high altitude on humansSlow-wave sleepCardiologyInternal medicineApneaElectroencephalography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Sleep at high altitude is dominated by lighter sleep stages, consistent with the fragmented sleep pattern caused by the many arousals from sleep associated with an almost universal occurrence of central sleep apnoea (CSA). Previous work has shown that pharmacologically increasing cerebral blood flow (CBF) reduces CSA severity; however, whether this alters sleep architecture is unknown. The aim of this study was to examine whether increases in CBF at high altitude affected sleep architecture and improved sleep quality. Methods: At 5050m, 11 subjects underwent full polysomnography monitored sleep following either iv acetazolamide (Az) (10mg/kg) combined with dobutamine (Dob) (2-5ug/kg/min) or placebo injections / i.v (order randomized). Duplex ultrasound of volumetric blood flow in the internal carotid and vertebral arteries was used to estimate global CBF prior to sleep. Results: CBF increased by 37±15% following Az/dob compared to placebo (P<0.001). CSA index fell from 136±47 to 49±37 events/h of sleep (P<0.001). The percentage of time spent in light sleep was less with Az/dob compared to placebo (Non-REM stage 1: 11±6% vs. 19±10; p=0.03) and there was a trend for more non-REM stage 3 sleep (21±12% vs. 13±11; p=0.06). The percentage of non-REM stage 2 was similar between conditions (62±12% vs. 58±12%, Az/dob and placebo, respectively; p=0.23), as was REM sleep (6±6% vs. 10±8%; p=0.27). All non-REM sleep stages saw a reduction in CSA events (p<0.05), whereas events during REM sleep were similar between conditions (p=0.60). Conclusion: Increasing CBF reduced the severity of CSA at high altitude, resulting in less fragmented sleep and consequently less time spent in light sleep.

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)0.000
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 score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.213
Teacher spread0.210 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHigh Altitude and HypoxiaFrench-language works237,207