Breathing patterns and associated cardiovascular changes in intermittently breathing animals: (Partially) correcting a semantic quagmire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many animal species do not breathe in a continuous, rhythmic fashion, but rather display a variety of breathing patterns characterized by prolonged periods between breaths (inter-breath intervals), during which the heart continues to beat. Examples of intermittent breathing abound across the animal kingdom, from crustaceans to cetaceans. With respect to human physiology, intermittent breathing-also termed 'periodic' or 'episodic' breathing-is associated with a variety of pathologies. Cardiovascular phenomena associated with intermittent breathing in diving species have been termed 'diving bradycardia', 'submersion bradycardia', 'immersion bradycardia', 'ventilation tachycardia', 'respiratory sinus arrhythmia' and so forth. An examination across the literature of terminology applied to these physiological phenomena indicates, unfortunately, no attempt at standardization. This might be viewed as an esoteric semantic problem except for the fact that many of the terms variously used by different authors carry with them implicit or explicit suggestions of underlying physiological mechanisms and even human-associated pathologies. In this article, we review several phenomena associated with diving and intermittent breathing, indicate the semantic issues arising from the use of each term, and make recommendations for best practice when applying specific terms to particular cardiorespiratory patterns. Ultimately, we emphasize that the biology-not the semantics-is what is important, but also stress that confusion surrounding underlying mechanisms can be avoided by more careful attention to terms describing physiological changes during intermittent breathing and diving.
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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".