On the existence of a central respiratory oxygen sensor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A commonly held view that dominates both the scientific and educational literature is that in terrestrial mammals the central nervous system lacks a physiological hypoxia sensor capable of triggering increases in lung ventilation in response to decreases in Po 2 of the brain parenchyma. Indeed, a normocapnic hypoxic ventilatory response has never been observed in humans following bilateral resection of the carotid bodies. In contrast, almost complete or partial recovery of the hypoxic ventilatory response after denervation/removal of the peripheral respiratory oxygen chemoreceptors has been demonstrated in many experimental animals when assessed in an awake state. In this essay we review the experimental evidence obtained using in vitro and in vivo animal models, results of human studies, and discuss potential mechanisms underlying the effects of CNS hypoxia on breathing. We consider experimental limitations and discuss potential reasons why the recovery of the hypoxic ventilatory response has not been observed in humans. We review recent experimental evidence suggesting that the lower brain stem contains functional oxygen sensitive elements capable of stimulating respiratory activity independently of peripheral chemoreceptor input.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".