ArticleJournal of mathematical biology2022
The (human) respiratory rate at rest.
Article in Journal of mathematical biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
All schoolchildren know how often they breathe, but even experts don't know exactly why. The aim of this publication is to develop a model of the resting spontaneous breathing rate using physiological, physical and mathematical methods with the aid of the principle that evolution pushes physiology in a direction that is as economical as possible. The respiratory rate then follows from an equation with the parameters [Formula: see text]-production rate of the organism, resistance, static compliance and dead space of the lungs, the inspiration duration: expiration duration - ratio and the end-expiratory [Formula: see text] fraction. The derivation requires exclusively secondary school mathematics. Using the example of an adult human or a newborn child, data from the literature then result in normal values for their breathing rate at rest. The reason for the higher respiratory rate of a newborn human compared to an adult is the relatively high [Formula: see text]-production rate together with the comparatively low compliance of the lungs. A side result is the fact that the common alveolar pressure throughout the lungs and the common time constant is a consequence of the economical principle as well. Since the above parameters are not human-specific, there is no reason to assume that the above equation could not also be applicable to many animals breathing through lungs within a thorax, especially mammals. Not only physiology and biology, but also medicine, could benefit: Applicability is being discussed in pulmonary function diagnostics, including pathophysiology. However, the present publication only claims to be a theoretical concept of the spontaneous quiet breathing rate. In the absence of comparable animal data, this publication is intended to encourage further scientific tests.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.