Impact of varying physical activity levels on airway sensitivity and bronchodilation in healthy humans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine if the amount of physical activity influences airway sensitivity and bronchodilation in healthy subjects across a range of physical activity levels. Thirty healthy subjects (age, 21.9 ± 2.6 years; 13 men/17 women) with normal pulmonary function reported to the laboratory on 2 separate occasions where they were randomized to breathe either hypertonic saline (HS) (nebulized hypertonic saline (25%) for 20 min) or HS followed by 5 deep inspirations (DIs), which has been reported to bronchodilate the airways. Pulmonary function tests (PFTs) were performed prior to both conditions and following the HS breathing or 5 DIs. Moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) level was measured via accelerometer worn for 7 days. Following the HS breathing, forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) and forced vital capacity (FVC) significantly decreased from baseline by -11.8% ± 8.4% and -9.3% ± 6.7%, respectively. A 2-segment linear model determined significant relationships between MVPA and percent change in FEV1 (r = 0.50) and FVC (r = 0.55). MVPA above ∼497 and ∼500 min/week for FEV1 and FVC, respectively, resulted in minor additional improvements (p > 0.05) in PFTs following the HS breathing. Following the DIs, FEV1 and FVC decreased (p < 0.05) by -7.3% ± 8.6% and -5.7% ± 5.7%, respectively, from baseline, but were not related (p > 0.05) to MVPA. In conclusion, these data demonstrate that higher MVPA levels attenuated airway sensitivity but not bronchodilation in healthy subjects.
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) | 0.001 | 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".