MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Effect of a Patent Foramen Ovale and Sex on the Hypercapnic Ventilatory Response

2017· article· en· W4389023811 on OpenAlexaff
Alyssa M. Hardin, Lindsey M. Boulet, James Davis, Alex J. Chang, Glen E. Foster, Andrew T. Lovering

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and Diving-Related Complications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHypercapniaMedicinePatent foramen ovaleCardiologyAnesthesiaForamen ovale (heart)Ventilation (architecture)Hypoxia (environmental)Shunt (medical)PopulationInternal medicineRespiratory systemOxygenChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A patent foramen ovale (PFO) is a right‐to‐left intracardiac shunt pathway present in approximately 35% of the general healthy population. Individuals with a PFO (PFO+) exhibit higher alveolar to arterial oxygen difference (AaDO 2 ) values at rest than subjects without a PFO (PFO−), indicating that PFO+ subjects have a source of right‐to‐left shunt significant enough to decrease gas exchange efficiency at rest. Additionally, PFO+ subjects have blunted ventilatory acclimatization to hypoxia compared to PFO− subjects. While the presence of a PFO is known to influence hypoxic chemosensitivity, it has yet to be determined if the presence of a PFO has an effect on the hypercapnic ventilatory response (HCVR). Thirty subjects (15 female) matched for height, weight, sex and age participated in this study. Subjects completed two hypercapnic breathing trials in a randomized and balanced order, separated by ≥ 40 minutes of rest between trials. At the start of each trial, subjects began breathing room air until steady‐state values for end‐tidal oxygen and carbon dioxide (P ET O 2 and P ET CO 2 ) were established. P ET O 2 and P ET CO 2 were then controlled utilizing a dynamic end‐tidal forcing system (AirForce). During the hyperoxic hypercapnia (HH) trial, P ET O 2 was clamped at 250 mmHg and P ET CO 2 was increased in a stepwise fashion to target values of +3 mmHg, +6 mmHg and +9 mmHg of each subject's baseline P ET CO 2 . Each stage consisted of a 90 second steady‐state data collection period after each increase. The procedure for the normoxic hypercapnia (NH) trial was identical to the HH trial except that P ET O 2 was clamped at the resting baseline value for each subject and P ET CO 2 increased as above. Hypercapnic ventilatory response (HCVR) was calculated as the change in minute ventilation (V E ) divided by the change in P ET CO 2 (L/min/Torr CO 2 ). PFO+ subjects demonstrated a blunted, significantly lower HCVR than PFO− subjects during both the HH (PFO−: 1.80 L/min/Torr CO 2 ± 0.17, PFO+: 1.19 L/min/Torr CO 2 ± 0.14, p < 0.05) and NH (PFO−: 1.79 L/min/Torr CO 2 ± 0.23, PFO+: 1.24 L/min/Torr CO 2 ± 0.26, p < 0.05) trials. These data suggest that PFO+ subjects have a blunted ventilatory response to acute exposure to hypercapnia. Within the subset of female subjects, PFO+ females had a significantly lower HCVR than PFO− females in the HH trial (PFO−: 1.85 L/min/Torr CO 2 ± 0.27, PFO+: 1.06 L/min/Torr CO 2 ± 0.13, p < 0.05) and NH trial (PFO−: 1.81 L/min/Torr CO 2 ± 0.28, PFO+: 1.15 L/min/Torr CO 2 ± 0.11, p < 0.05). However, no differences were observed between the male PFO+ and PFO− subjects in the HH (PFO−: 1.77 L/min/Torr CO 2 ± 0.37, PFO+: 1.35 L/min/Torr CO 2 ± 0.24, p > 0.05) or NH (PFO−: 1.76 L/min/Torr CO 2 ± 0.24, PFO+: 1.33 L/min/Torr CO 2 ± 0.28, p > 0.05) trials. These results suggest that female PFO+ subjects have a blunted HCVR compared to female PFO− subjects.

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 score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicCardiovascular and Diving-Related ComplicationsFrench-language works237,207