Respiratory Sensation and Ventilatory Mechanics during Induced Bronchoconstriction in Spontaneously Breathing Low Cervical Quadriplegia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intensity of dyspnea during induced bronchoconstriction in asthma is strongly related to the reduction in inspiratory capacity (IC) as a result of dynamic hyperinflation. To determine the role of rib cage and intercostal muscle afferents in symptom perception during bronchoconstriction, we measured the relationship between dyspnea intensity and IC during induced bronchoconstriction in six subjects with complete C4-C7 quadriplegia who did not require assisted ventilation. Spirometry, lung volumes, breathing pattern, esophageal pressure (Pes), and dyspnea intensity (Borg Scale) were measured during high-dose methacholine bronchoprovocation up to 256 mg/ml or a maximum change (Delta) in FEV(1) of 50%. Contemporaneous control data from subjects with asthma (n = 12) who had completed the same protocol were used for comparison. At maximum response in quadriplegia, FEV(1) decreased by 1.42 +/- 0.18 L (62 +/- 4%predicted) (mean +/- SEM), and IC decreased by 0.89 +/- 0.12 L (30 +/- 4%predicted). Dyspnea at maximum response was rated "moderate" to "severe": Borg 3.6 +/- 0.3. The predominant qualitative respiratory sensations were inspiratory difficulty and unsatisfied inspiration. The best correlate of dyspnea (Borg) was DeltaIC(%predicted) (p < 0.0005), whereas changes in FEV(1), Pes-derived measurements and breathing pattern did not contribute further to the strength of this relationship. Dyspnea intensity, quality, and changes in spirometry and lung volumes at maximum response were similar to those reported previously in asthma. The relationship between dyspnea intensity and DeltaIC(%predicted) was linear and consistent across groups. We conclude that the quality and intensity of dyspnea during methacholine-induced bronchoconstriction and dynamic hyperinflation was not altered by extensive chest wall deafferentation.
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".