Effects of a helium/oxygen mixture on individuals’ lung function and metabolic cost during submaximal exercise for participants with obstructive lung diseases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Helium/oxygen therapies have been studied as a means to reduce the symptoms of obstructive lung diseases with inconclusive results in clinical trials. To better understand this variability in results, an exploratory physiological study was performed comparing the effects of helium/oxygen mixture (78%/22%) to that of medical air. METHODS: The gas mixtures were administered to healthy, asthmatic, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) participants, both moderate and severe (6 participants in each disease group, a total of 30); at rest and during submaximal cycling exercise with equivalent work rates. Measurements of ventilatory parameters, forced spirometry, and ergospirometry were obtained. RESULTS: There was no statistical difference in ventilatory and cardiac responses to breathing helium/oxygen during submaximal exercise. For asthmatics, but not for the COPD participants, there was a statistically significant benefit in reduced metabolic cost, determined through measurement of oxygen uptake, for the same exercise work rate. However, the individual data show that there were a mixture of responders and nonresponders to helium/oxygen in all of the groups. CONCLUSION: The inconsistent response to helium/oxygen between individuals is perhaps the key drawback to the more effective and widespread use of helium/oxygen to increase exercise capacity and for other therapeutic applications.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".