Exercise‐induced potentiation of the acute hypoxic ventilatory response: Neural mechanisms and implications for cerebral blood flow
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A given dose of hypoxia causes a greater increase in pulmonary ventilation during physical exercise than during rest, representing an exercise-induced potentiation of the acute hypoxic ventilatory response (HVR). This phenomenon occurs independently from hypoxic blood entering the contracting skeletal muscle circulation or metabolic byproducts leaving skeletal muscles, supporting the contention that neural mechanisms per se can mediate the HVR when humoral mechanisms are not at play. However, multiple neural mechanisms might be interacting intricately. First, we discuss the neural mechanisms involved in the ventilatory response to hypoxic exercise and their potential interactions. Current evidence does not support an interaction between the carotid chemoreflex and central command. In contrast, findings from some studies support synergistic interactions between the carotid chemoreflex and the muscle mechano- and metaboreflexes. Second, we propose hypotheses about potential mechanisms underlying neural interactions, including spatial and temporal summation of afferent signals into the medulla, short-term potentiation and sympathetically induced activation of the carotid chemoreceptors. Lastly, we ponder how exercise-induced potentiation of the HVR results in hyperventilation-induced hypocapnia, which influences cerebral blood flow regulation, with multifaceted potential consequences, including deleterious (increased central fatigue and impaired cognitive performance), inert (unchanged exercise) and beneficial effects (protection against excessive cerebral perfusion).
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".