MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Testing Ventilatory Acclimatization to High Altitude using the Hyperoxic Ventilatory Withdrawal Test

2021· article· en· W3165910937 on OpenAlexafffund
Sergio Amesty, Cole Huber, Godi Jibi, Jamie R. Pfoh, Christina D. Bruce, Emily Vanden Berg, Trevor A. Day

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHigh Altitude and Hypoxia
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusKelowna General HospitalUniversity of British ColumbiaMount Royal University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAcclimatizationHypoxia (environmental)Effects of high altitude on humansMedicineAnesthesiaContext (archaeology)Hypoxic ventilatory responseAltitude (triangle)AcetazolamideVentilation (architecture)Internal medicineOxygenBiologyChemistryRespiratory systemMeteorologyMathematicsAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Testing the transient hypoxic ventilatory response (HVR) is the most common method utilized for assessing ventilatory acclimatization in the setting of high altitude ascent, as the peripheral chemoreceptors become sensitized to hypoxia with chronic exposure. However, this test requires sophisticated equipment (e.g., gas tanks, feedback controllers) that lacks portability, and may lead to participant discomfort while already hypoxic while at altitude. The transient hyperoxic withdrawal (HVW) test is simple, portable and safe, using a small 100% O 2 tank available on most expeditions, and may better assess ventilatory acclimatization when participants are chronically hypoxic in high altitude fieldwork studies. We hypothesized that the HVW would be larger following 7‐days of ascent to 4240m while taking acetazolamide (Diamox; i.e., ventilatory stimulant) than an acute hypoxic control group at low altitude, thus having utility in detecting ventilatory acclimatization during ascent to high altitude. Using two separate recruitments, we tested two groups in two contexts. In Part A, we recruited 14 participants to assess the HVW in the context of acute, steady‐state hypoxia (~30‐min; F I O 2 13.5‐14%) in a laboratory context (1045m, P ATM ~665 mmHg). In Part B, 12 participants were recruited from a large research expedition to high altitude in the Nepal Himalaya, following 7 days of incremental ascent to high altitude (4240m, P ATM ~460 mmHg), while taking prophylactic Diamox (125 mg, BID). Participants were instrumented with a mouthpiece and bacteriological filter attached to a calibrated pneumotachometer (to measure inspired ventilation; V I ; L/min) and a peripheral pulse oximeter to measure oxygen saturation (SpO 2 ;%). First, while breathing roughly equivalent P I O 2 of ~85 mmHg at baseline (BL), both groups were exposed a single tidal breath of 100% O 2 from a 50L Douglas bag by switching a three‐way valve from room air to hyperoxia. The HVW was quantified as the change (delta) in V I from BL to the smallest instantaneous breath within 20‐sec of the hyperoxic stimulus indexed to the change in SpO 2 from BL to the peak following the hyperoxic breath, wherever it occurred (i.e., ventilatory response/oxygen change). We found that the HVW values from acute hypoxic participants had a mean of 0.34±0.23 L/min/%, while those who underwent acclimatization to high altitude hypoxia had a significantly larger HVW of 0.53±0.24 L/min/% (P=0.03). Our results suggest that the transient HVW test is a feasible method to detect peripheral chemoreceptor sensitization and ventilatory acclimatization in the context of high altitude ascent.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicHigh Altitude and HypoxiaFrench-language works237,207