Oxygen cost of exercise hyperpnea is greater in women compared to men (882.3)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We tested the hypothesis that the O2 cost of exercise hyperpnea is greater in women compared to men. Healthy subjects (8M, 7F) first performed a maximal step cycle exercise test with esophageal and gastric balloon instrumentation followed by a hyperpnea familiarization trial on a separate day. Cardiorespiratory parameters were measured and flow‐ and pressure‐volume loops were constructed from the same breaths (~n=10) for each exercise stage. Days 3 and 4 involved exercise hyperpnea mimicking over 5 ventilatory levels while in the cycling position. Mimicking trials were repeated (n=4) for each ventilatory level. End‐tidal CO2 was controlled to a level corresponding to each exercise stage. Respiratory muscle O2 uptake (VO2rm) was linearly related to work of breathing (WOB) in men (r=0.94, P<0.001) and women (r=0.88, P<0.001). The VO2rm to VE relationship was assessed by fitting a regression accounting for viscous and resistive work. There was no difference in viscous work (P=0.45); however, the resistive component was ~13x greater in women (P<0.05). At maximal ventilation the absolute VO2rm was similar between sexes (0.39 vs. 0.42 l min‐1, P=0.52) despite men having a greater VE (108 vs. 169 l min‐1); but the VO2rm represented a greater fraction of whole‐body VO2 in women (14.6 vs. 9.8%, P<0.05). In conclusion, the O2 cost of exercise hyperpnea is greater in women owing to a greater resistive WOB. Grant Funding Source : Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
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) | 0.005 | 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".