MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Does hyperoxia stimulate breathing?

2023· article· en· W4378648587 on OpenAlexaff
Joshua D. Huggard, Nasimi A. Guluzade, James Duffin, Daniel A. Keir

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysiology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHyperoxiapCO2Ventilation (architecture)AnesthesiaChemoreceptorRespirationCarbon dioxideMedicineChemistryCardiologyInternal medicineLungAnatomyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hyperoxia has been shown to stimulate ventilation (V̇E) in a dose-dependent manner. Whether this occurs due to an oxygen (O2)-specific mechanism or secondary to carbon dioxide (CO2) retention at the central chemoreceptors (via the Haldane effect) remains unclear. This study measured the ventilatory response to isoxic-hyperoxic CO2 modified rebreathing (an estimate of central chemoreflex sensitivity) with O2 clamped at increasingly higher hyperoxic pressures. We hypothesized that the slope of the V̇E versus PCO2 relationship is fixed and independent of hyperoxic severity. Fourteen healthy participants (6 females; mean ± SD age: 25 ±7 years) visited the laboratory on four occasions to perform three repetitions of modified rebreathing in four isoxic-hyperoxic conditions: “mild”: PO2=150 mmHg; “moderate”: PO2=200 mmHg; “high”: PO2=300 mmHg; and “extreme”: PO2=700 mmHg. The level of isoxic-hyperoxic PO2 was randomized between visits. Throughout rebreathing, breath-by-breath V̇E, end-tidal PCO2 (PETCO2) and O2 (PETO2) were measured by pneumotach and dual gas analyser. For each trial, the PETCO2 at which V̇E began to rise was identified as the ventilatory recruitment threshold (VRT, mmHg). The V̇E data prior to VRT provided baseline V̇E (V̇Ebsl, L∙min-1) and the slope of the linear response above VRT estimated central respiratory chemoreflex sensitivity (V̇ES, L∙min-1∙mmHg-1). For each hyperoxic condition, VRT, V̇Ebsl, and V̇ES from like-trials were averaged and between condition comparisons were assessed by repeated measures analysis of variance. There was no effect of PETO2 on V̇Ebsl (mild: 6.7±3.4 L∙min-1; moderate: 5.9±3.0 L∙min-1; heavy: 5.5±1.6 L∙min-1; extreme: 6.1±3.2 L∙min-1; p=0.35), VRT (mild: 42.7±3.2 mmHg; moderate: 42.0±2.2 mmHg; heavy: 42.2 ±2.4 mmHg; extreme: 41.5±2.4 mmHg; p=0.17) or V̇ES (mild: 5.04±2.78 L∙min-1∙mmHg-1; moderate: 4.64±1.90 L∙min-1∙mmHg-1; heavy: 4.68±1.92 L∙min-1∙mmHg-1; extreme: 4.49±1.72 L∙min-1∙mmHg-1; p=0.47). The hyperoxic V̇E versus PCO2 relationship was unaltered across a range of PO2 spanning mild to extreme. These data indicate that hyperoxia is not an independent stimulant of breathing. Supported by NSERC This is the full abstract presented at the American Physiology Summit 2023 meeting and is only available in HTML format. There are no additional versions or additional content available for this abstract. Physiology was not involved in the peer review process.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysiology→Same topicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms→French-language works237,207→