Effects of Obesity on Perceptual and Mechanical Responses to Bronchoconstriction in Asthma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: The influence of obesity on the perception of respiratory discomfort during acute bronchoconstriction in asthma is unknown. OBJECTIVES: We hypothesized that the respiratory impairment associated with an increased body mass index (BMI) would predispose to greater perceived symptom intensity during acute airway narrowing. We therefore compared relationships between induced changes in dyspnea intensity and lung function during methacholine (MCh) bronchoprovocation in obese (OBA) and normal-weight (NWA) individuals with asthma of mild to moderate severity. METHODS: High-dose MCh challenge tests to a maximum 50% decrease in FEV(1) were conducted in 51 NWA (BMI, 18.5-24.9 kg/m(2); 29% male) and 45 OBA (BMI, 30.1-51.4 kg/m(2); 33% male) between 20 and 60 years of age. Serial spirometry, inspiratory capacity (IC), plethysmographic end-expiratory lung volume (EELV) and dyspnea intensity using the Borg scale were measured throughout bronchoprovocation. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Spirometry and airway sensitivity were similar in both groups; baseline EELV was lower (P < 0.0005) and IC was higher (P = 0.007) in OBA compared with NWA. From baseline to PC(20), EELV increased more in OBA (20% predicted) than NWA (13% predicted) (P = 0.008) with concomitant greater reductions in IC (P < 0.0005). Dyspnea ratings were not different for a given FEV(1) or IC across groups. By mixed effects regression analysis, relationships between induced dyspnea and changes in lung function parameters were not influenced by BMI, sex, or their interaction. CONCLUSIONS: Perceptual responses to MCh-induced bronchoconstriction and lung hyperinflation were similar in obese and normal-weight individuals with asthma despite significant group differences in baseline lung volumes.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".