Respiratory sensation during chest wall restriction and dead space loading in exercising men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We mimicked important mechanical and ventilatory aspects of restrictive lung disorders by employing chest wall strapping (CWS) and dead space loading (DS) in normal subjects to gain mechanistic insights into dyspnea causation and exercise limitation. We hypothesized that thoracic restriction with increased ventilatory stimulation would evoke exertional dyspnea that was similar in nature to that experienced in such disorders. Twelve healthy young men [28 +/- 2 (SE) yr of age] completed pulmonary function tests and maximal cycle exercise tests under four conditions, in randomized order: 1) control, 2) CWS to 60% of vital capacity, 3) added DS of 600 ml, and 4) CWS + DS. Measurements during exercise included cardiorespiratory parameters, esophageal pressure, and Borg scale ratings of dyspnea. Compared with control, CWS significantly reduced the tidal volume response to exercise, increased dyspnea intensity at any given work rate or ventilation, and thus limited exercise performance. DS stimulated ventilation but had minimal effects on dyspnea and exercise performance. Adding DS to CWS further increased dyspnea by 1.7 +/- 0.6 standardized Borg units (P = 0.012) and decreased exercise performance (total work) by 21 +/- 6% (P = 0.003) over CWS alone. Across conditions, increased dyspnea intensity correlated best with decreased resting inspiratory reserve volume (r = -0.63, P < 0.0005). Dyspnea during CWS was described primarily as "inspiratory difficulty" and "unsatisfied inspiration," similar to restrictive disorders. In conclusion, severe dyspnea and exercise intolerance were provoked in healthy normal subjects when tidal volume responses were constrained in the face of increased ventilatory drive during exercise.
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".