Revisiting dysanapsis: sex‐based differences in airways and the mechanics of breathing during exercise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
NEW FINDINGS: What is the topic of this review? This review focuses on sex-based differences in the anatomy of the respiratory system, which manifest in mechanical ventilatory constraints and potentially alter the integrative response to exercise. What advances does it highlight? Recent evidence indicates that women have smaller conducting airways than men, even when matched for lung size. Consequently, women are more likely to experience mechanical ventilatory constraints to exercise hyperpnoea. Furthermore, at a given ventilation, women have a higher work and oxygen cost of breathing, both of which may lead to differences in the whole-body integrative response to dynamic exercise. Our understanding of the human ventilatory response to exercise is largely based on a historical body of literature focused primarily on male rather than female research subjects. In recent years, important sex-based differences in the anatomy of the human respiratory system have been identified; for a given lung size, women appear to have smaller-diameter conducting airways than men. The presence of such inherent differences in the tracheobronchial tree greatly affects the mechanics of airflow generation, especially during conditions of high ventilation rates, such as exercise. Data from a growing number of studies suggest that women may be more susceptible to respiratory system limitations during exercise than their male counterparts. Specifically, women are more likely to experience expiratory flow limitation and exercise-induced arterial hypoxaemia and have a higher metabolic cost of breathing for a given ventilation. Collectively, the available evidence suggests that sex differences in the ventilatory response to exercise are present and may have important ramifications for the integrated response to exercise; however, several fundamental questions remain unanswered.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".