The role of eucapnic voluntary hyperpnea in the diagnosis of exercise-induced vocal cord dysfunction in athletes: A pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Exercise-induced bronchoconstriction (EIB) is a common condition. Exercise-induced vocal cords dysfunction (EIVCD) is a frequent confounder of EIB and is the most common cause of upper airway obstruction during exercise.The diagnosis of EIVCD is not obvious and can be missed as the problem is often intermittent and may only occur during intense exercise. EVH is considered one of the best tests to detect EIB. This pilot study aims to assess if EVH can be helpful in the diagnosis of EIVCD associated or not to EIB in athletes. Methods: A nasolaryngoscopy was done during a 6-minute EVH test by an otorhinolaryngologist (ENT), in 13 female athletes suspected to have EIVCD, aged 21 ± 6 years.Image analysis was conducted by 2 ENT in random order. Results: During the EVH, 3 athletes showed incomplete paradoxical vocal cordsmovement, without inspiratory stridor. However, 12 athletes showed supraglottic movement without inspiratory stridor. In 2 athletes, this supraglottic movement was severe, one showing a marked epiglottis collapse with an almost complete obstruction of the larynx by the arytenoid cartilage mucosa. In three of the 12 athletes with supraglottic movement, severe vibration of the arytenoid cartilage mucosa was also observed. Conclusion: EVH challenge in athletes although it can provide information on various types of laryngeal dysfunction in reproducing laryngeal movement during hyperventilation. Exercise-induced inspiratory stridor may be associated with a paradoxical movement of the vocal cords or to a supraglottic movement of various magnitudes.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".