MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3123824594 · doi:10.1038/s41598-021-81837-w

Ventilatory response to hypercapnia is increased after 4 h of head down bed rest

2021· article· en· W3123824594 on OpenAlexafffund
Kevin R. Murray, Sara Wasef, Heather Edgell

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpaceflight effects on biology
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Foundation for InnovationYork University
KeywordsHypercapniaBed restRest (music)Head (geology)MedicineCardiologyInternal medicineBiologyRespiratory system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Head-down bed rest (HDBR) has previously been shown to alter cerebrovascular and autonomic control. Previous work found that sustained HDBR (≥ 20 days) attenuates the hypercapnic ventilatory response (HCVR); however, little is known about shorter-term effects of HDBR nor the influence of HDBR on the hypoxic ventilatory response (HVR). We investigated the effect of 4-h HDBR on HCVR and HVR and hypothesized attenuated ventilatory responses due to greater carotid and brain blood flow. Cardiorespiratory responses of young men (n = 11) and women (n = 3) to 5% CO 2 or 10% O 2 before and after 4-h HDBR were examined. HDBR resulted in lower HR, lower cardiac output index, lower common carotid artery flow, higher SpO 2 , and higher pulse wave velocity. After HDBR, tidal volume and ventilation responses to 5% CO 2 were enhanced (all P < 0.05), yet no other changes in cardiorespiratory variables were evident. There was no influence of HDBR on the cardiorespiratory responses to hypoxia (all P > 0.05). Short-duration HDBR does not alter the HVR, yet enhances the HCVR, which we hypothesize is a consequence of cephalic CO 2 accumulation from cerebral congestion.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.325
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.277 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicSpaceflight effects on biologyFrench-language works237,207