Un modèle amphibian pour l’étude du développement du contrôle de la respiration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent medical advances have made it possible for babies to survive premature birth at increasingly earlier developmental stages. This population requires costly and sophisticated medical care to address the problems associated with immaturity of the respiratory system. In addition to pulmonary complications, respiratory instability and apnea reflecting immaturity of the respiratory control system are major causes of hospitalization and morbidity in this highly vulnerable population. These medical concerns, combined with the curiosity of physiologists, have contributed to the expansion of research in respiratory neurobiology. While most researchers working in this field commonly use rodents as an animal model, recent research using in vitro brainstem preparation from bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana) have revealed the technical advantages of this animal model, and shown that the basic principles underlying respiratory control and its ontogeny are very similar between these two groups of vertebrates. The present review highlights the recent advances in the area of research with a focus on intermittent (episodic) breathing and the role of serotonergic and GABAergic modulation of respiratory activity during development.
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 | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".