Surviving Without Oxygen: How Low Can the Human Brain Go?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bailey, Damian M., Christopher K. Willie, Ryan L. Hoiland, Anthony R. Bain, David B. MacLeod, Maria A. Santoro, Daniel K. DeMasi, Andrea Andrijanic, Tanja Mijacika, Otto F. Barak, Zeljko Dujic, and Philip N. Ainslie. Surviving without oxygen: how low can the human brain go? High Alt Med Biol 18:73–79, 2017.—Hypoxic cerebral vasodilation is a highly conserved physiological response coupling cerebral O2 delivery (CDO2) to metabolic demand with increasingly important roles identified for the red blood cell (sensor) and nitric oxide (effector). In the current article, we reexamine previously published cerebral blood flow (CBF) and arterial blood gas data obtained in freedivers and mountaineers, extreme athletes in whom the lowest arterial partial pressures of O2 (19–23 mmHg) and greatest extremes of carbon dioxide (16–61 mmHg) were recorded during (acute) maximal static dry apnea or (chronic) exposure to terrestrial high altitude. Data highlight compensatory increases in CBF (+96% in freedivers to +209% in mountaineers relative to normoxic baseline controls) that were sufficient to sustain CDO2 (+24% in freedivers to +183% in mountaineers) even in the face of the most severe reductions in arterial O2 content (−61% in freedivers to −9% in mountaineers) reported in the literature, consistent with the conservation of mass principle. These unique findings highlight to what extent cerebral vasodilation likely contributes toward these athletes' extraordinary abilities to survive in such harsh environments characterized by physiological extremes of hypoxemia, alkalosis, and acidosis helping define the human brain's remarkable limits of tolerance.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".