Determining the effects of elevated partial pressure of oxygen on hypercapnia-induced cerebrovascular reactivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evaluation of cerebrovascular reactivity (CVR) to hypo- and hypercapnia is a valuable test for the assessment of vasodilatory reserve. While hypercapnia-induced CVR testing is usually performed at normoxia, mild hyperoxia may increase tolerability of hypercapnia by reducing the ventilatory distress. However, the effects of mild hyperoxia on CVR was unknown. We therefore recruited 21 patients with a range of steno-occlusive diseases and 12 healthy participants who underwent a standardized 13-minute step plus ramp CVR test with a carbon dioxide gas challenge at the subject’s resting end-tidal partial pressure of oxygen or at mild hyperoxia (PetO 2 = 150 mmHg) depending on to which group they were assigned. In 11 patients, the second CVR test was at normoxia to examine test-retest differences. CVR was defined as % Δ Signal/ΔPetCO 2 . We found that there was no significant difference between CVR test results conducted at normoxia and at mild hyperoxia for participants in Groups 1 and 2 for the step and ramp portion. We also found no difference between test and retest CVR at normoxia for patients with cerebrovascular pathology (Group 3) for step and ramp portion. We concluded normoxic CVR is repeatable, and that mild hyperoxia does not affect CVR.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".