Sex Differences in Thoracic Dimensions and Configuration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The volume of adult female lungs is typically 10-12% smaller than that of males who have the same height and age. In this study, we investigated how this volume difference is distributed between the rib cage and the diaphragm abdomen compartments. Internal rib cage dimensions, diaphragm position relative to spine, and diaphragm length were compared in 21 normal male and 19 normal female subjects at three different lung volumes using anterior-posterior and lateral chest radiographs. At all lung volumes examined, females had smaller radial rib cage dimensions in relationship to height than males, a greater inclination of ribs, a comparable diaphragm dome position relative to the spine, and a shorter diaphragm length. Female subjects exhibited a greater inspiratory rib cage muscle contribution during resting breathing than males, presumably reflecting an improved mechanical advantage conferred to these muscles by the greater inclination of ribs. Because of a greater inclination of ribs, female rib cages could accommodate a greater volume expansion. The results suggest a disproportionate growth of the rib cage in females relative to the lung, which would be well suited to accommodate large abdominal volume displacements as in pregnancy.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| 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".