Pulmonary diffusion and aerobic capacity: is there a relation? Does obesity matter?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: We sought to determine whether pulmonary diffusing capacity for nitric oxide (DLNO), carbon monoxide (DLCO) and pulmonary capillary blood volume (Vc) at rest predict peak aerobic capacity (VO2peak), and if so, to discern which measure predicts better. METHODS: Thirty-five individuals with extreme obesity (body mass index or BMI = 50 +/- 8 kg m((-2)) and 26 fit, non-obese subjects (BMI = 23 +/- 2 kg m((-2)) participated. DLNO and DLCO at rest were first measured. Then, subjects performed a graded exercise test on a cycle ergometer to determine (VO2peak). Multivariate regression was used to assess relations in the data. RESULTS: Findings indicate that (i) pulmonary diffusion at rest predicts (VO2peak) in the fit and obese when measured with DLNO, but only in the fit when measured with DLCO; (ii) the observed relation between pulmonary diffusion at rest and (VO2peak) is different in the fit and obese; (iii) DLNO explains (VO2peak) better than DLCO or Vc. The findings imply the following reference equations for DLNO: (VO2peak) (mL kg(-1) min(-1)) = 6.81 + 0.27 x DLNO for fit individuals; (VO2peak) (mL kg(-1) min(-1)) = 6.81 + 0.06 x DLNO, for obese individuals (in both groups, adjusted R(2 )=( )0.92; RMSE = 5.58). CONCLUSION: Pulmonary diffusion at rest predicts (VO2peak), although a relation exists for obese subjects only when DLNO is used, and the magnitude of the relation depends on gender when either DLCO or Vc is used. We recommend DLNO as a measure of pulmonary diffusion, both for its ease of collection as well as its tighter relation with (VO2peak).
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".