Rethinking O<sub>2</sub>, CO<sub>2</sub> and breathing during wakefulness and sleep
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We have examined the importance of three long‐standing questions concerning chemoreceptor influences on cardiorespiratory function which are currently experiencing a resurgence of study among physiologists and clinical investigators. Firstly, while carotid chemoreceptors (CB) are required for hypoxic stimulation of breathing, use of an isolated, extracorporeally perfused CB preparation in unanaesthetized animals with maintained tonic input from the CB, reveals that extra‐CB hypoxaemia also provides dose‐dependent ventilatory stimulation sufficient to account for 40–50% of the total ventilatory response to steady‐state hypoxaemia. Extra‐CB hyperoxia also provides a dose‐ and time‐dependent hyperventilation. Extra‐CB sites of O2‐driven ventilatory stimulation identified to date include the medulla, kidney and spinal cord. Secondly, using the isolated or denervated CB preparation in awake animals and humans has demonstrated a hyperadditive effect of CB sensory input on central CO2 sensitivity, so that tonic CB activity accounts for as much as 35–40% of the normal, air‐breathing eupnoeic drive to breathe. Thirdly, we argue for a key role for CO2 chemoreception and the neural drive to breathe in the pathogenesis of upper airway obstruction during sleep (OSA), based on the following evidence: (1) removal of the wakefulness drive to breathe enhances the effects of transient CO2 changes on breathing instability; (2) oscillations in respiratory motor output precipitate pharyngeal obstruction in sleeping subjects with compliant, collapsible airways; and (3) in the majority of patients in a large OSA cohort, a reduced neural drive to breathe accompanied reductions in both airflow and pharyngeal airway muscle dilator activity, precipitating airway obstruction. image
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".