Effects of Ethanol on Sleep and Central Respiratory Motor Activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ethanol worsens sleep‐disordered breathing in humans. To determine whether this effect may be due to a central depression of respiratory motor activity and/or sedation, we recorded sleep‐wake states, genioglossus and diaphragm muscle activities in freely‐behaving rats (n=10), following intra‐peritoneal injection of 1.25 g/kg ethanol or saline (control) in random order. Ethanol injections resulted in maximum blood levels of 140 mg/dl, i.e., a physiologically relevant level for producing impairment of cognitive and motor behavior in rats and humans. Ethanol decreased wakefulness (P=0.03), increased non‐rapid eye movement (NREM) sleep (P=0.02) but had no effect on REM sleep (P=0.81). Ethanol also decreased respiratory‐related genioglossus activity in wakefulness (P=0.02), but not diaphragm amplitude or respiratory rate in any state. However, application of ethanol in doses ranging from 0.025 to 1 M directly to the hypoglossal motor nucleus in isoflurane‐anesthetised rats (n=10) did not suppress genioglossus muscle activity. In conclusion, ethanol at physiologically relevant concentrations promoted sleep indicative of a sedating effect. The lack of effect on genioglossus muscle activity with ethanol applied directly to the hypoglossal motor nucleus suggests that the suppression observed with systemic administration was mediated via effects operating outside this motor pool. Supported by: CIHR
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".