Is pulmonary gas exchange during exercise in hypoxia impaired with the increase of cardiac output?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During exercise in humans, the alveolar-arterial O(2) tension difference ((A-a)DO(2)) increases with exercise intensity and is an important factor determining the absolute level of oxygen binding to hemoglobin and therefore the level of systemic oxygen transport. During exercise in hypoxia, the (A-a)DO(2) is accentuated. Using the multiple inert gas elimination technique it has been shown that during exercise in acute hypoxia the contribution of ventilation-perfusion inequality to (A-a)DO(2) is rather small and in the absence of pulmonary edema intrapulmonary shunts can be ruled out. This implies that the main mechanism limiting pulmonary gas exchange is diffusion limitation. It is presumed that an elevation of cardiac output during exercise in acute hypoxia should increase the (A-a)DO(2). However, no studies have examined how variations in cardiac output independently affect pulmonary diffusion with increases in exercise intensity. We have consistently observed that during steady-state, submaximal (100-120 W) exercise on the cycle ergometer in hypoxia the lung can accommodate an increase in cardiac output of approximately 2 L x min(-1) without any significant effect on pulmonary gas exchange. This result contrasts with the predicted effect of cardiac output on (A-a)DO(2) using the model of Piiper and Scheid, and thus indicates that an elevation of cardiac output is not necessarily accompanied by a reduction of mean transit time and (or) diffusion limitation during submaximal exercise in acute hypoxia. It remains to be determined what is the influence of changes in cardiac output per se on pulmonary gas exchange during high-intensity 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".