MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4296710279 · doi:10.1183/16000617.0069-2022

Ventilatory neural drive in chronically hypercapnic patients with COPD: effects of sleep and nocturnal noninvasive ventilation

2022· review· en· W4296710279 on OpenAlexaff
Alexandra McCartney, Devin B. Phillips, Matthew D. James, Olivia Chan, J. Alberto Neder, Juan P. de‐Torres, Nicolle J. Domnik, Sophie J. Crinion

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Respiratory Review · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience of respiration and sleep
Canadian institutionsKingston Health Sciences CentreQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHypercapniaCOPDNormocapniaVentilation (architecture)NocturnalControl of respirationSleep (system call)Intensive care medicineAnesthesiaRespiratory systemInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sleep brings major challenges for the control of ventilation in humans, particularly the regulation of arterial carbon dioxide pressure ( P aCO 2 ). In patients with COPD, chronic hypercapnia is associated with increased mortality. Therefore, nocturnal high-level noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (NIV) is recommended with the intention to reduce P aCO 2 down to normocapnia. However, the long-term physiological consequences of P aCO 2 “correction” on the mechanics of breathing, gas exchange efficiency and resulting symptoms ( i.e. dyspnoea) remain poorly understood. Investigating the influence of sleep on the neural drive to breathe and its translation to the mechanical act of breathing is of foremost relevance to create a solid rationale for the use of nocturnal NIV. In this review, we critically discuss the mechanisms by which sleep influences ventilatory neural drive and mechanical consequences in healthy subjects and hypercapnic patients with advanced COPD. We then discuss the available literature on the effects of nocturnal NIV on ventilatory neural drive and respiratory mechanics, highlighting open avenues for further investigation.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.249 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations13
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Respiratory ReviewSame topicNeuroscience of respiration and sleepFrench-language works237,207