MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2909094053 · doi:10.14814/phy2.13967

Respiratory mechanics and cerebral blood flow during heat-induced hyperventilation and its voluntary suppression in passively heated humans

2019· article· en· W2909094053 on OpenAlexaff
Bun Tsuji, Yuta Hoshi, Yasushi Honda, Naoto Fujii, Yosuke Sasaki, Stephen S. Cheung, Narihiko Kondo, Takeshi Nishiyasu

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysiological Reports · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate Change and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsBrock University
FundersMinistry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and TechnologyUehara Memorial Foundation
KeywordsHyperventilationMedicineWork of breathingAnesthesiaVentilation (architecture)BreathingRespiratory physiologyRespiratory systemCerebral blood flowTidal volumeRespiratory rateCardiologyInternal medicineBlood pressureHeart ratePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigated whether heat-induced hyperventilation can be voluntarily prevented, and, if so, how this modulates respiratory mechanics and cerebral blood flow in resting heated humans. In two separate trials, 10 healthy men were passively heated using lower body hot-water immersion and a water-perfused garment covering their upper body (both 41°C) until esophageal temperature (Tes) reached 39°C or volitional termination. In each trial, participants breathed normally (normal-breathing) or voluntarily controlled minute ventilation (VE) at a level equivalent to that observed after 5 min of heating (controlled-breathing). Respiratory gases, middle cerebral artery blood velocity (MCAV), work of breathing, and end-expiratory and inspiratory lung volumes were measured. During normal-breathing, VE increased as Tes rose above 38.0 ± 0.3°C, whereas controlled-breathing diminished the increase in VE (VE at Tes = 38.6°C: 25.6 ± 5.9 and 11.9 ± 1.3 L min−1 during normal- and controlled-breathing, respectively, P < 0.001). During normal-breathing, end-tidal CO2 pressure and MCAV decreased with rising Tes, but controlled-breathing diminished these reductions (at Tes = 38.6°C, 24.7 ± 5.0 vs. 39.5 ± 2.8 mmHg; 44.9 ± 5.9 vs. 60.2 ± 6.3 cm sec−1, both P < 0.001). The work of breathing correlated positively with changes in VE (P < 0.001) and was lower during controlled- than normal-breathing (16.1 ± 12.6 and 59.4 ± 49.5 J min−1, respectively, at heating termination, P = 0.013). End-expiratory and inspiratory lung volumes did not differ between trials (P = 0.25 and 0.71, respectively). These results suggest that during passive heating at rest, heat-induced hyperventilation increases the work of breathing without affecting end-expiratory lung volume, and that voluntary control of breathing can nearly abolish this hyperventilation, thereby diminishing hypocapnia, cerebral hypoperfusion, and increased work of breathing.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.810
Threshold uncertainty score0.517

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations18
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysiological ReportsSame topicClimate Change and Health ImpactsFrench-language works237,207