Influence of High Hemoglobin-Oxygen Affinity on Humans During Hypoxia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Humans elicit a robust series of physiological responses to maintain adequate oxygen delivery during hypoxia, including a transient reduction in hemoglobin-oxygen (Hb-O2) affinity. However, high Hb-O2 affinity has been identified as a beneficial adaptation in several species that have been exposed to high altitude for generations. The observed differences in Hb-O2 affinity between humans and species adapted to high altitude pose a central question: is higher or lower Hb-O2 affinity in humans more advantageous when O2 availability is limited? Humans with genetic mutations in hemoglobin structure resulting in high Hb-O2 affinity have shown attenuated cardiorespiratory adjustments during hypoxia both at rest and during exercise, providing unique insight into this central question. Therefore, the purpose of this review is to examine the influence of high Hb-O2 affinity during hypoxia through comparison of cardiovascular and respiratory adjustments elicited by humans with high Hb-O2 affinity compared to those with normal Hb-O2 affinity.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".