MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Comparison of Multiple Chemosensitivity Tests in Healthy Adults

2016· article· en· W4389025715 on OpenAlexaff
Sophie É. Collins, Desi P. Fuhr, Wade W. Michaelchuk, Bradley W. Byers, Michael K. Stickland

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic Control
Canadian institutionsCovenant HealthUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHypoxia (environmental)ChemoreceptorInternal medicineCarotid bodyCardiologyAnesthesiaChemistryStimulationOxygen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chemoreceptor activity and sensitivity have been shown to be elevated in clinical conditions such as heart failure, hypertension and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, with heightened chemosensitivity being predictive of mortality in heart failure. Various protocols have been used in these studies to evaluate chemosensitivity, and the purpose of our project was to examine the relationship between three of these chemoreceptor tests: 1) the transient hypoxic ventilatory drive test, 2) the single‐breath (SB) CO 2 test, 3) the CO 2 rebreathe test. It was hypothesized that the transient hypoxia test and the SB CO 2 test would be correlated as both likely stimulate the carotid chemoreceptors and that they would be unrelated to the rebreathe test, as this test likely stimulates the central chemoreceptors. Ten healthy individuals (5 males, 5 females, mean age 27±10 yrs) were recruited. The SB CO 2 test and the CO 2 rebreathe test were performed first, with the order randomized within subjects. For the SB CO 2 test, subjects were given a single breath of 13% CO 2 , 10 times at 2 min intervals. The hypercapnic ventilatory response was calculated by plotting the change in ventilation relative to the change in P ET CO 2 during the 20s following the SB of CO 2 . For the CO 2 rebreathe protocol, subjects rebreathed 50% O 2 , 7% CO 2 and 43% N 2 from a 5L Douglas bag until P ET CO 2 reached 55mmHg, or until subjects requested termination of the test. The ventilatory response to the CO 2 rebreathe was calculated by plotting the change in ventilation relative to the change in P ET CO 2 . The transient hypoxia trial was conducted, where subjects were given 2–8 breaths of pure N 2 . The number of breaths was randomized and repeated 10–14 times. The slope of the regression line between the change in ventilation and the change in SpO 2 represented the hypoxic ventilatory response. The average hypoxic ventilatory response was 0.56±0.09 L/min/% SpO 2 . The mean SB CO 2 response was 0.37±0.07 L/min/mmHg and the mean rebreathe response was 1.81±0.94 L/min/mmHg. There was no significant correlation between the transient hypoxia test and SB CO 2 test (r = 0.13, p = 0.72), no significant correlation between the SB CO 2 test and the CO 2 rebreathe test (r = 0.09, p = 0.81), and no significant correlation between the CO 2 rebreathe test and the transient hypoxia test (r = 0.07, p = 0.85). Our results suggest that the transient hypoxic ventilatory drive test, the single‐breath CO 2 test, and the CO 2 rebreathe test are unrelated to each other in healthy humans. Our results support earlier suggestions that these tests may evaluate independent components of chemosensitivity.

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)0.005
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.299
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic ControlFrench-language works237,207