Increased exhaled breath condensate 8‐isoprostane after a swimming session in competitive swimmers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the levels of 8-isoprostane (8-IsoP) in the airways of competitive swimmers at baseline and after a swimming session according to their airway responsiveness. METHODS: Twenty-three swimmers and six lifeguards had a baseline spirometry and bronchoprovocative challenges. During a second visit, swimmers performed a usual swimming session while lifeguards stayed in the same pool environment for the same time period. Forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) was measured before and 5 min after the end of the session. Exhaled breath condensate (EBC) was sampled before and 10 min after the session and EBC 8-IsoP levels were analysed by enzyme immunoassay. Change in EBC 8-IsoP from baseline to post-swimming session was calculated. RESULTS: We observed no relationships between airway hyper-responsiveness and 8-IsoP values before or after swimming in swimmers. The levels of 8-IsoP were significantly higher after the training session (mean value 2.9, s = 0.5 pg mL(-1)) than at baseline (mean value 1.9, s = 0.4 pg mL(-1)) in swimmers only (p = .012). EBC 8-IsoP levels after the swimming session significantly correlated with the percent change in FEV1 after swimming. CONCLUSIONS: EBC 8-IsoP levels were increased after training in swimmers but not in lifeguards, suggesting that exercise-induced hyperpnoea in a chlorinated pool environment increases airways oxidative stress.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".