Physiological Daily Inhalation Rates for Health Risk Assessment in Overweight/Obese Children, Adults, and Elderly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physiological daily inhalation rates reported in our previous study for normal-weight subjects 2.6-96 years old were compared to inhalation data determined in free-living overweight/obese individuals (n = 661) aged 5-96 years. Inhalation rates were also calculated in normal-weight (n = 408), overweight (n = 225), and obese classes 1, 2, and 3 adults (n = 134) aged 20-96 years. These inhalation values were based on published indirect calorimetry measurements (n = 1,069) and disappearance rates of oral doses of water isotopes (i.e., (2)H2 O and H2 (18)O) monitored by gas isotope ratio mass spectrometry usually in urine samples for an aggregate period of over 16,000 days. Ventilatory equivalents for overweight/obese subjects at rest and during their aggregate daytime activities (28.99 ± 6.03 L to 34.82 ± 8.22 L of air inhaled/L of oxygen consumed; mean ± SD) were determined and used for calculations of inhalation rates. The interindividual variability factor calculated as the ratio of the highest 99th percentile to the lowest 1st percentile of daily inhalation rates is higher for absolute data expressed in m3 /day (26.7) compared to those of data in m3/kg-day (12.2) and m3/m2-day (5.9). Higher absolute rates generally found in overweight/obese individuals compared to their normal-weight counterparts suggest higher intakes of air pollutants (in μg/day) for the former compared to the latter during identical exposure concentrations and conditions. Highest absolute mean (24.57 m3/day) and 99th percentile (55.55 m3 /day) values were found in obese class 2 adults. They inhale on average 8.21 m3 more air per day than normal-weight adults.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".