Exercise-induced arterial hypoxaemia in active young women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies examining pulmonary gas exchange during exercise have primarily focused on young healthy men, whereas the female response to exercise has received limited attention. Evidence is accumulating that the response of the lungs, airways, and (or) respiratory muscles to exercise is less than ideal and this may significantly compromise oxygen transport in certain groups of otherwise healthy, fit, active, male subjects. Women may be even more susceptible to exercise-induced pulmonary limitations than height-matched men, by virtue of their smaller lung volumes, lower maximal expiratory flow rates, and smaller diffusion surface areas. We have recently shown that exercise-induced arterial hypoxaemia (EIAH) is more prevalent and occurs at relatively lower fitness levels in females than in males. Despite this finding, few physiologically based mechanisms have been identified to explain why women may be more susceptible to EIAH than men. Potential mechanisms of EIAH include relative alveolar hypoventilation, ventilation-perfusion inequality, and diffusion limitation. Whether these mechanisms are different between sexes remains controversial. The primary purpose of this review is to summarize the available data on EIAH in women and to discuss potential sex-based mechanisms for gas exchange impairment. Furthermore, we discuss unresolved questions dealing with pulmonary system limitations during exercise in women.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".