The overlooked significance of plasma volume for successful adaptation to high altitude in Sherpa and Andean natives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In contrast to Andean natives, high-altitude Tibetans present with a lower hemoglobin concentration that correlates with reproductive success and exercise capacity. Decades of physiological and genomic research have assumed that the lower hemoglobin concentration in Himalayan natives results from a blunted erythropoietic response to hypoxia (i.e., no increase in total hemoglobin mass). In contrast, herein we test the hypothesis that the lower hemoglobin concentration is the result of greater plasma volume, rather than an absence of increased hemoglobin production. We assessed hemoglobin mass, plasma volume and blood volume in lowlanders at sea level, lowlanders acclimatized to high altitude, Himalayan Sherpa, and Andean Quechua, and explored the functional relevance of volumetric hematological measures to exercise capacity. Hemoglobin mass was highest in Andeans, but also was elevated in Sherpa compared with lowlanders. Sherpa demonstrated a larger plasma volume than Andeans, resulting in a comparable total blood volume at a lower hemoglobin concentration. Hemoglobin mass was positively related to exercise capacity in lowlanders at sea level and in Sherpa at high altitude, but not in Andean natives. Collectively, our findings demonstrate a unique adaptation in Sherpa that reorientates attention away from hemoglobin concentration and toward a paradigm where hemoglobin mass and plasma volume may represent phenotypes with adaptive significance at high altitude.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".