MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Episodic breathing patterns in neonatal rats: neurochemical modulation, developmental changes and pontine influences

2008· article· en· W603587093 on OpenAlexaff
Angelina Y. Fong, William K. Milsom

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience of respiration and sleep
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPonsMedicineApneaNeurochemicalSudden infant death syndromeAnesthesiaNeuroscienceInternal medicinePsychologyPediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Episodic breathing is prevalent in premature infants and is found in fetal rats but rarely reported in postnatal (PN) in vitro preparations. We observed episodic breathing patterns in the in vitro pontomedullary‐spinal cord preparation from rat pups on day of birth (P0) and PN day 2 (P2), but the occurrence declined with PN age with 70% of P0 and 20% of P2 preparations exhibited episodic patterns. In P0 preparations, episodic inspiratory bursting was recorded from cervical rootlets (C4/C1), hypoglossal and thoracic nerves (T1/T2), and episodic expiratory bursts coupled to inspiratory bursts were recorded from the 12 th thoracic nerve rootlet. As neonates are highly sensitive to respiratory depression by opioids, we hypothesized that endogenous opioids participate in the production of the apneas between the episodes. Activation of opioid receptors (DAMGO 1–2μM) increased apnea duration but antagonism with naloxone (1–5μM) did not alter apnea duration or the episodic pattern, suggesting that endogenous opioids do not mediate the episodic rhythm. We also examined the role of the pons in the generation of the episodic rhythm. Both chemical inhibition and physical removal of the pons eliminated the episodic breathing pattern. Our data suggests that the pons is involved in the generation of episodic rhythms but that this involvement decreases and is lost over the first two PN days.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicNeuroscience of respiration and sleep→French-language works237,207→