Performance During Constant Workrate Cycling Exercise in Women with COPD and Hyperinflation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We aimed to characterize gender differences in exercise endurance, operating lung volumes and symptoms limitation during exercise in patients with COPD. Ninety-three women and 93 men with COPD matched for age and disease severity were evaluated during symptom-limited constant-work rate cycle exercise at 75% of peak capacity. Breathing pattern, inspiratory capacity, dyspnoea and leg discomfort Borg scores were recorded during exercise. Endurance time was shorter in women compared to men. Inspiratory capacity decreased at a similar rate during exercise in women and men (0.71 vs. 0.81 ml x s(- 1) for women and men respectively, p = 0.47) despite lower ventilation at end-exercise in women. At end-exercise, women showed lower inspiratory reserve volume (p < 0.005). Dyspnoea responses during exercise occurred with a steep rise near end-exercise, when inspiratory reserve volume approached a critical value, at 10% of total lung capacity, this onset of dyspnoea acceleration occurred earlier in women (p < 0.0001). At the same relative exercise intensity, women with COPD had lower endurance time than men. Compared to men, women with COPD were disadvantaged during exercise as they reached a critical inspiratory reserve volume earlier, leading to a steep increase in dyspnoea and to exercise termination.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".