MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Comparative Assessment of Central and Peripheral Chemoreceptor Reflex Regulation of Muscle Sympathetic Nerve Activity and Ventilation

2019· article· en· W3173216063 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Daniel A. Keir, Philip J. Millar, James Duffin, John S. Floras

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic Control
Canadian institutionsThornhill Medical (Canada)University Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoUniversity of GuelphSinai Health SystemMount Sinai Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsHyperoxiaPeripheral chemoreceptorsChemoreceptorCentral chemoreceptorsAnesthesiaTidal volumeMicroneurographyReflexVentilation (architecture)Hypoxia (environmental)MedicineRespiratory minute volumePeripheralHeart rateBaroreflexInternal medicineRespiratory systemChemistryBlood pressureLungOxygen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We tested the hypothesis that central and peripheral chemoreceptor‐mediated sympathetic activation elicited by increases in CO 2 tension (PCO 2 ) mirror concurrent ventilatory responses. Twelve healthy young men (mean±SD; age: 24±4 yr; BMI: 24.5±1.3 kg·m −2 ) performed a modified rebreathing protocol designed to equilibrate central and peripheral chemoreceptor PCO 2 tensions with end‐tidal PCO 2 (P ET CO 2 ) at two isoxic end‐tidal PO 2 (P ET O 2 ) tensions such that central chemoreceptor reflex responses (hyperoxia) can be isolated from additive peripheral responses (i.e., hypoxia minus hyperoxia). Subject's ventilation (volume turbine) and muscle sympathetic nerve activity (MSNA; microneurography, right fibular nerve) responses to rebreathing at isoxic P ET O 2 tensions of 150 mmHg (hyperoxia) and 50 mmHg (hypoxia) were recorded continuously. During rebreathing, the P ET CO 2 (mmHg) at which ventilation (L·min −1 ) and total MSNA (au) began to rise were identified as the P ET CO 2 recruitment thresholds (RT). Slopes of these responses above RT also were determined. In hyperoxic rebreathing (i.e., the central chemoreflex response), the mean RT for ventilation (46±3 mmHg) and MSNA (45±4 mmHg) did not differ (p>0.05). Mean slopes were 2.3±0.9 L·min −1 ·mmHg −1 and 2.1±1.5 au·mmHg −1 , respectively. In hypoxic rebreathing (i.e., the summed central and peripheral chemoreflex response), the RT for both ventilation and MSNA were not different (41±3 mmHg vs 41±3 mmHg, p>0.05) but were lower (p<0.05) compared to hyperoxia. Mean slopes for ventilation (4.0±1.8 L·min −1 ·mmHg −1 ) and MSNA (5.1±3.4 au·mmHg −1 ) in hypoxia were greater than in hyperoxia yielding a mean peripheral chemoreflex sensitivity (hypoxic slope minus hyperoxic slope) of 1.7±0.1 L·min −1 ·mmHg −1 for ventilation and 3.0±2.6 au·mmHg −1 for MSNA. The 95% limits of agreement of RT between ventilation and MSNA for the central chemoreflex were −7 to 6 mmHg (bias=−1 mmHg, p>0.05) and −5 to 5 mmHg (bias=0 mmHg, p>0.05) for the peripheral chemoreflex. There was no relationship (p>0.05) between the ventilatory and MSNA sensitivity for either the central (r 2 =0.16) or peripheral (r 2 =0.01) chemoreceptor reflexes. These data highlight two novel findings: 1) ventilatory and sympathetic arms of the central and peripheral chemoreceptor reflexes are initiated at similar P ET CO 2 recruitment thresholds and 2) sympathetic responsiveness cannot be predicted from the sensitivities of the ventilatory central and peripheral chemoreceptor reflexes. Support or Funding Information Experiments were funded by a Project Grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (PJT 159491). Dr. Floras holds the Canada Research Chair in Integrative Cardiovascular Biology. This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2019 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal .

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)0.000
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.276 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic ControlFrench-language works237,207