MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

AGE‐DEPENDENT EFFECTS OF PROGESTERONE ON VENTILATION AND APNEA IN RATS

2012· article· en· W3175168345 on OpenAlexaff
Vincent Joseph, Cécile Julien, Richard Kinkead, Aïda Bairam

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience of respiration and sleep
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBradycardiaApneaVentilation (architecture)MedicineHypoxic ventilatory responseSalineAnesthesiaInternal medicineHypoxia (environmental)Control of respirationEndocrinologyRespiratory systemOxygenHeart rateChemistryBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Progesterone has been proposed as an alternative for apnea treatment in neonates but relevant data are rare. In rats aged 1, 4, 7, and 12 days we investigated the effects of progesterone (Prog, 4 mg/kg, i.p.) on baseline ventilation, hypoxic ventilatory response (HVR, 12% O2, 20 minutes), apnea frequency (for spontaneous and post‐sigh apneas), and arterial oxygen desaturation and bradycardia during apneas (Mouse‐Ox device). Control rats received a saline injection (2 ul/g i.p.). Prog had no effect on baseline ventilation, increased the peak HVR in 4 and 7 d‐old and the steady state HVR in 1, 4 and 7 d‐old, but had no effects in 12 d‐old rats. About 23% of all apneas were associated with desaturation and/or bradycardia independently of their types. Prog reduced the frequency of those apneas particularly in 1‐d‐old rats. These preliminary observations suggest that acute Prog injection stimulates HVR in rats less or equal to 7 d‐old and reduces apnea independently to its effect on HVR. Supported by Foundation of Stars.

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)0.000
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 score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.246 · 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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicNeuroscience of respiration and sleep→French-language works237,207→