MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3026379440 · doi:10.1113/ep088488

Cardiorespiratory hysteresis during incremental high‐altitude ascent–descent quantifies the magnitude of ventilatory acclimatization

2020· article· en· W3026379440 on OpenAlexafffund
Jack K. Leacy, Andrea M. Linares, Shaelynn M. Zouboules, Zahrah H. Rampuri, Jordan D. Bird, Brittney Herrington, Leah M. Mann, Jan Elaine Soriano, Scott F. Thrall, Anne Kalker, Tom D. Brutsaert, Ken D. O’Halloran, Mingma Sherpa, Trevor A. Day

Bibliographic record

VenueExperimental Physiology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience of respiration and sleep
Canadian institutionsMount Royal University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity College Cork
KeywordsCardiorespiratory fitnessEffects of high altitude on humansAcclimatizationAltitude (triangle)HypocapniaDescent (aeronautics)Ventilation (architecture)CardiologyMedicineAnesthesiaInternal medicineBiologyMathematicsPhysicsMeteorologyAnatomyHypercapnia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

New Findings What is the central question of this study? We assessed the utility of a new metric for quantifying ventilatory acclimatization to high altitude, derived from differential ascent and descent steady‐state cardiorespiratory variables (i.e. hysteresis). Furthermore, we aimed to investigate whether the magnitude of cardiorespiratory hysteresis was associated with the development of acute mountain sickness. What is the main finding and its importance? Hysteresis in steady‐state cardiorespiratory variables quantifies ventilatory acclimatization to high altitude. The magnitude of cardiorespiratory hysteresis during ascent to and descent from high altitude was significantly related to the development of symptoms of acute mountain sickness. Hysteresis in steady‐state chemoreflex drive can provide a simple, non‐invasive method of tracking ventilatory acclimatization to high altitude. Abstract Maintenance of arterial blood gases is achieved through sophisticated regulation of ventilation, mediated by central and peripheral chemoreflexes. Respiratory chemoreflexes are important during exposure to high altitude owing to the competing influence of hypoxia and hypoxic hyperventilation‐mediated hypocapnia on steady‐state ventilatory drive. Inter‐individual variability exists in ventilatory acclimatization to high altitude, potentially affecting the development of acute mountain sickness (AMS). We aimed to quantify ventilatory acclimatization to high altitude by comparing differential ascent and descent values (i.e. hysteresis) in steady‐state cardiorespiratory variables. We hypothesized that: (i) the hysteresis area formed by cardiorespiratory variables during ascent and descent would quantify the magnitude of ventilatory acclimatization; and (ii) larger hysteresis areas would be associated with lower AMS symptom scores during ascent. In 25 healthy, acetazolamide‐free trekkers ascending to and descending from 5160 m, cardiorespiratory hysteresis was measured in the partial pressure of end‐tidal CO 2 , peripheral oxygen saturation, minute ventilation, chemoreceptor stimulus index (end‐tidal CO 2 /peripheral oxygen saturation) and the calculated steady‐state chemoreflex drive (SS‐CD; minute ventilation/chemoreceptor stimulus index) using portable devices (capnograph, peripheral pulse oximeter and respirometer, respectively). Symptoms of AMS were assessed daily using the Lake Louise questionnaire. We found that: (i) ascent–descent hysteresis was present in all cardiorespiratory variables; (ii) SS‐CD is a valid metric for tracking ventilatory acclimatization to high altitude; and (iii) the highest AMS scores during ascent exhibited a significant, moderate and inverse correlation with the magnitude of SS‐CD hysteresis ( r s = −0.408, P = 0.043). We propose that ascent–descent hysteresis is a new and feasible way to quantify ventilatory acclimatization in trekkers during high‐altitude exposure.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.587

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations16
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExperimental PhysiologySame topicNeuroscience of respiration and sleepFrench-language works237,207