Emerging concepts in lower vertebrate respiratory rhythm generation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Respiratory rhythm generators appear both evolutionarily and developmentally as paired segmental rhythm generators in the reticular formation, associated with the motor nuclei of cranial nerves V, VII, IX, X, and XII. At least two pairs of respiratory rhythm generators appear to remain in adult lampreys with the most rostral pair in the trigeminal region producing normal respiration. Cartilaginous and bony fishes possess a dual pump with rhythmic motor control of the buccal and opercular cavities by trigeminal and facial nerves and there is evidence both for multiple respiratory rhythm generators within the medulla, as well as a diffuse rostral‐caudal distribution of respiratory rhythm generating networks. In amphibians, while the basic respiratory pump remains the same, the dominant site of respiratory rhythm generation has been assumed by neurons in the vicinity of the glossopharyngeal/vagal and hypoglossal motor nuclei. In reptiles, birds and mammals, there is a switch to an aspiration pump driven by thoraco‐lumbar muscles innervated by spinal nerves and the critical sites necessary for respiratory rhythmogenesis now sit near the ponto‐medullary border, in the parafacial region (which may underlie expiratory‐dominated, intercostal‐abdominal breathing in non‐mammalian tetrapods) and in the PreBötzinger Complex (which may underlie inspiratory‐dominated diaphragmatic breathing in mammals). Supported by the NSERC of Canada.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".