Test‐retest reliability of eucapnic voluntary hyperpnea test performance and pre‐post spirometry in elite swimmers (LB783)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Test‐retest reliability of eucapnic voluntary hyperpnea test performance and pre‐post spirometry in elite swimmers Michael D. Kennedy 1 , Craig D. Steinback 1 , Rachel Skow 1 , Eric C. Parent 2 . 1 Faculty of Physical Education and Recreation, 2 Department of Physical Therapy, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Exercise induced bronchoconstriction (EIB) is common in “high ventilation” athletes and a 6 min Eucapnic Voluntary Hyperpnea (EVH) airway provocation (30 breaths/min; Tidal Volume (TV) of 85% FEV 1 ; 100% dry medical air) is the standard EIB screen. Sensitivity of EVH is well documented; however, test‐retest reliability of spirometry measurements and EVH performance has not been determined. Swimmers (n=11; 5/6 m/f) with 蠅13 yrs of competitive experience completed spirometry (FEV 1 ) before and 45 sec, 5, 10, 20 min after an EVH test on 2 consecutive days. Overall pre‐test FEV 1 was decreased on Day 2 (Day 1 4.6±0.8 vs. Day 2 4.5±0.7L, p = 0.04) and this pre‐test FEV 1 decrease occurred in 9/11 swimmers (range ‐ 370 (6.8%) to ‐ 30ml (0.6%); with excellent agreement in pre‐test FEV 1 between days (ICC 0.97 (0.90 ‐ 0.99, 95% confidence interval). Swimmers achieved 85±9% and 87±9% of target TV on Day 1 and 2 respectively (p = 0.45; ICC 0.57 (0.00 – 0.86)) resulting in a total ventilation of 687 vs 684L (p = 0.89, ICC 0.89 (0.65 – 0.97)) equating to 82±8% and 84±9% of predicted total volume (ICC 0.54 (0.00 – 0.85) between Day 1 and Day 2. Day 1 and 2 post‐test FEV 1 were not different at any time point however 4 swimmers were positive for EIB (> 15% fall in pre‐post FEV 1 ) and these swimmers post‐test FEV 1 was 10.6 to 1.9% less on Day 2. Post‐test ICC for FEV 1 were 0.97 (0.91‐0.99), 0.97 (0.89‐0.99), 0.97 (0.88‐0.99) and 0.94 (0.81‐0.98) at 45s, 5min, 10min, and 20 min respectively. Overall, strong test‐retest reliability was found for FEV 1 and total ventilation; despite a significant decrease in pre‐test FEV 1 on Day 2. Post‐test FEV 1 is likely more reliable early post‐test (45s, 5min, 10min) than at 20min post‐test.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".