MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Sex-related Differences in Loop Gain during High-Altitude Sleep-disordered Breathing

2023· article· en· W4362458449 on OpenAlexafffund
Jordan D. Bird, Scott A. Sands, Raichel M. Alex, Conan L. H. Shing, Brooke M. Shafer, Nicholas Jendzjowsky, Richard J. A. Wilson, Trevor A. Day, Glen E. Foster

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the American Thoracic Society · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience of respiration and sleep
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of CalgaryMount Royal UniversityUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteGovernment of AlbertaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacsAmerican Academy of Sleep Medicine FoundationNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMedicineEffects of high altitude on humansInternal medicineApneaSleep apneaAltitude (triangle)Altitude sicknessCardiologyAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Rationale Central sleep apnea (CSA) is pervasive during sleep at high altitude, disproportionately impacting men and associated with increased peripheral chemosensitivity. Objectives We aimed to assess whether biological sex affects loop gain (LGn) and CSA severity during sleep over 9–10 days of acclimatization to 3,800 m. We hypothesized that CSA severity would worsen with acclimatization in men but not in women because of greater increases in LGn in men. Methods Sleep studies were collected from 20 (12 male) healthy participants at low altitude (1,130 m, baseline) and after ascent to (nights 2/3, acute) and residence at high altitude (nights 9/10, prolonged). CSA severity was quantified as the respiratory event index (REI) as a surrogate of the apnea–hypopnea index. LGn, a measure of ventilatory control instability, was quantified using a ventilatory control model fit to nasal flow. Linear mixed models evaluated effects of time at altitude and sex on respiratory event index and LGn. Data are presented as contrast means with 95% confidence intervals. Results REI was comparable between men and women at acute altitude (4.1 [−9.3, 17.5] events/h; P = 0.54) but significantly greater in men at prolonged altitude (23.7 [10.3, 37.1] events/h; P = 0.0008). Men had greater LGn than did women for acute (0.08 [0.001, 0.15]; P = 0.047) and prolonged (0.17 [0.10, 0.25]; P < 0.0001) altitude. The change in REI per change in LGn was significantly greater in men than in women (107 ± 46 events/h/LGn; P = 0.02). Conclusions The LGn response to high altitude differed between sexes and contributed to worsening of CSA over time in men but not in women. This sex difference in acclimatization appears to protect females from high altitude–related CSA. These data provide fundamental sex-specific physiological insight into high-altitude acclimatization in healthy individuals and may help to inform sex differences in sleep-disordered breathing pathogenesis in patients with cardiorespiratory disease.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations15
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the American Thoracic SocietySame topicNeuroscience of respiration and sleepFrench-language works237,207