MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385754454 · doi:10.1113/jp284772

A test of the interaction between central and peripheral respiratory chemoreflexes in humans

2023· article· en· W4385754454 on OpenAlexafffund
Nasimi A. Guluzade, Joshua D. Huggard, James Duffin, Daniel A. Keir

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physiology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience of respiration and sleep
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalThornhill Medical (Canada)Lawson Health Research InstituteUniversity of TorontoWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPhysicsCombinatoricsAtomic physicsCrystallographyMathematicsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract How central and peripheral chemoreceptor drives to breathe interact in humans remains contentious. We measured the peripheral chemoreflex sensitivity to hypoxia (PChS) at various isocapnic CO2 tensions () to determine the form of the relationship between PChS and central . Twenty participants (10F) completed three repetitions of modified rebreathing tests with end‐tidal () clamped at 150, 70, 60 and 45 mmHg. End‐tidal (), , ventilation (E) and calculated oxygen saturation (SCO2) were measured breath‐by‐breath by gas‐analyser and pneumotach. The E– relationship of repeat‐trials were linear‐interpolated, combined, averaged into 1 mmHg bins, and fitted with a double‐linear function (ES, L min−1mmHg−1). PChS was computed at intervals of 1 mmHg of as follows: the difference in E between the three hypoxic profiles and the hyperoxic profile (∆E) was calculated; three ∆E values were plotted against corresponding SCO2; and linear regression determined PChS (Lmin−1mmHg−1%SCO2−1). These processing steps were repeated at each to produce the PChS vs. isocapnic relationship. These were fitted with linear and polynomial functions, and Akaike information criterion identified the best‐fit model. One‐way repeated measures analysis of variance assessed between‐condition differences. ES increased (P < 0.0001) with isoxic from 3.7 ± 1.5 L min−1mmHg−1 at 150 mmHg to 4.4 ± 1.8, 5.0 ± 1.6 and 6.0 ± 2.2 Lmin−1mmHg−1 at 70, 60 and 45 mmHg, respectively. Mean SCO2 fell progressively (99.3 ± 0%, 93.7 ± 0.1%, 90.4 ± 0.1% and 80.5 ± 0.1%; P < 0.0001). In all individuals, PChS increased with , and this relationship was best described by a linear model in 75%. Despite increasing central chemoreflex activation, PChS increased linearly with indicative of an additive central–peripheral chemoreflex response. image Key points How central and peripheral chemoreceptor drives to breathe interact in humans remains contentious. We measured peripheral chemoreflex sensitivity to hypoxia (PChS) at various isocapnic carbon dioxide tensions () to determine the form of the relationship between PChS and central . Participants performed three repetitions of modified rebreathing with end‐tidal fixed at 150, 70, 60 and 45 mmHg. PChS was computed at intervals of 1 mmHg of end‐tidal () as follows: the difference in E between the three hypoxic profiles and the hyperoxic profile (∆E) was calculated; three ∆E values were plotted against corresponding calculated oxygen saturation (SCO2); and linear regression determined PChS (Lmin−1mmHg−1%SCO2−1). In all individuals, PChS increased with , and this relationship was best described by a linear (rather than polynomial) model in 15 of 20. Most participants did not exhibit a hypo‐ or hyper‐additive effect of central chemoreceptors on the peripheral chemoreflex indicating that the interaction was additive.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations9
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of PhysiologySame topicNeuroscience of respiration and sleepFrench-language works237,207