MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4210691253 · doi:10.3410/f.740038096.793585486

Faculty Opinions recommendation of Cerebral blood flow, cerebrovascular reactivity, and their influence on ventilatory sensitivity.

2021· dataset· en· W4210691253 on OpenAlexaff
James Duffin

Bibliographic record

VenueFaculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature · 2021
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHigh Altitude and Hypoxia
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCerebral blood flowHypercapniaVentilation (architecture)ChemoreceptorpCO2Context (archaeology)Reactivity (psychology)Central chemoreceptorsArterial bloodMedicineRespiratory systemBlood flowControl of respirationCardiologyAnesthesiaInternal medicineBiologyPathologyReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

NEW FINDINGS: What is the topic of this review? Cerebrovascular reactivity to CO2 is a principle factor in determining ventilatory responses to CO2 through the role reactivity plays in determining cerebral extra- and intra-cellular pH. What advances does it highlight? Recent animal evidence suggests central chemoreceptor vasculature may demonstrate regionally heterogenous cerebrovascular reactivity to CO2 , potentially as a protective mechanism against excessive CO2 washout from the central chemoreceptors, thereby allowing ventilation to reflect the systemic acid-base balance needs (respiratory changes in PaCO2 ) rather than solely the cerebral needs. Ventilation per se does not influence cerebrovascular reactivity independent of changes in PaCO2 .ABSTRACT: Alveolar ventilation and cerebral blood flow are both predominantly regulated by arterial blood gases, especially arterial PCO2 , and so are intricately entwined. In this review, the fundamental mechanisms underlying cerebrovascular reactivity and central chemoreceptor control of breathing are covered. We discuss the interaction of cerebral blood flow and its reactivity with the control of ventilation and ventilatory responsiveness to changes in PCO2 , as well as the lack of influence of ventilation itself on cerebrovascular reactivity. We briefly summarize the effects of arterial hypoxaemia on the relationship between ventilatory and cerebrovascular response to both PCO2 and PO2 . We then highlight key methodological considerations regarding the interaction of reactivity and ventilatory sensitivity, including: regional heterogeneity of cerebrovascular reactivity; a pharmacological approach for the reduction of cerebral blood flow; reactivity assessment techniques; the influence of mean arterial blood pressure; and sex-related differences. Finally, we discuss ventilatory and cerebrovascular control in the context of high altitude and congestive heart failure. Future research directions and pertinent questions of interest are highlighted throughout. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. PMID: 33932955

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.194
Threshold uncertainty score0.651

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1940.129

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFaculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature→Same topicHigh Altitude and Hypoxia→French-language works237,207→