Expiratory activity during sleep in children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Sleep irregularities and respiratory events (apnea, O 2 desaturation or a combination thereof) are often present in the infant population. While inspiration is the main active process in the act of breathing, expiration is generally thought to occur passively. Although commonly considered as quiet during sleep, expiratory abdominal muscles have been proposed to be recruited to promote ventilation, facilitate gas exchange, and reduce the work of breathing during conditions of increased respiratory drive, exercise, or airway obstruction. In this study, we investigated the occurrence of expiratory abdominal muscle activity in polysomnographic studies of subjects (aged 0–2 years) suspected of sleep disordered breathing. Our results indicate that abdominal muscle activation occurs during sleep, most frequently during non‐rapid eye movement and rapid‐eye movement states compared to slow‐wave sleep. Furthermore, abdominal muscle activity was present during regular breathing or associated with respiratory events (apneas or O 2 desaturation). In the latter case, abdominal muscle recruitment more frequently followed the onset of respiratory events and terminated with recovery from blood O 2 desaturation events. We conclude that expiratory abdominal muscle activity contributes to the pattern of respiratory muscle recruitment during sleep in infants and given its temporal relationship with respiratory events, we propose that its recruitment could facilitate proper ventilation by counteracting airway resistance and O 2 desaturation in infancy across different stages of sleep.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".