The Effects of Air Quality Index Levels on the Respiratory Function of Disabled Athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There has recently been a great deal of discussion regarding the high particulate matter concentrations and poor air quality in and around Beijing, China. Recent research by others has suggested that the effects in Beijing during the 2008 Olympics may not be as detrimental as first thought. Additional data are needed. PURPOSE: This study was done to determine the effect of Air Quality Index (AQI) levels on respiratory function of athletes. METHODS: Six (6) competitive swimmers, and six (6) competitive goalball players, average age 30.2 years (SE = 2.72) traveled to Beijing, China in September, 2007. There were four females and 8 males that participated. Respiratory function tests were conducted daily for 5-8 days. These tests were executed using the MiniSpir portable spirometer (MIR, Rome, Italy). All tests were conducted in the morning prior to the intake of any nutrients or fluids. RESULTS: Due to the fact that the number of days spent in Beijing for the two teams was different, only maximum values (day 1) and minimum values were used as data. Forced Vital Capacity (FVC) declined from an average of 5.69 L to 4.87 L, (t(11) = 12.073, p <0.001). Forced Expiratory Volume in 1 s (FEV1) declined significantly as well (t (11) = 8.927from 4.47 L to 3.82 L. Peak Expiratory Flow (PEF) declined from 9.07 L*sec-1 to 7.46 L*sec-1, a significant decline in flow rate (t(11) = 7.966, p <0.001). These declines were seen as the AQI levels in Beijing increased from a low of 94 to a high of 171. This decline in respiratory function appears to covary with the particulate matter in the air. As the AQI levels increased, respiratory function decreased, such that the correlation between AQI and FVC is r = -0.806, p = 0.016; and between AQI and FEV1 was r = -0.929, p = 0.001. This effect was exacerbated in asthmatics, even while using budesonide and β2 agonists. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that there is a considerable effect of particulate matter on trained athletes in respiratory function variables. These results indicate that the consequence of increased particulate matter in the air may have greater effects on performance at the 2008 Olympics and Paralympics than initially indicated.
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".