Sex differences in exercise-induced diaphragmatic fatigue in endurance-trained athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is evidence that female athletes may be more susceptible to exercise-induced arterial hypoxemia and expiratory flow limitation and have greater increases in operational lung volumes during exercise relative to men. These pulmonary limitations may ultimately lead to greater levels of diaphragmatic fatigue in women. Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to determine whether there are sex differences in the prevalence and severity of exercise-induced diaphragmatic fatigue in 38 healthy endurance-trained men (n = 19; maximal aerobic capacity = 64.0 +/- 1.9 ml x kg(-1) x min(-1)) and women (n = 19; maximal aerobic capacity = 57.1 +/- 1.5 ml x kg(-1) x min(-1)). Transdiaphragmatic pressure (Pdi) was calculated as the difference between gastric and esophageal pressures. Inspiratory pressure-time products of the diaphragm and esophagus were calculated as the product of breathing frequency and the Pdi and esophageal pressure time integrals, respectively. Cervical magnetic stimulation was used to measure potentiated Pdi twitches (Pdi,tw) before and 10, 30, and 60 min after a constant-load cycling test performed at 90% of peak work rate until exhaustion. Diaphragm fatigue was considered present if there was a >or=15% reduction in Pdi,tw after exercise. Diaphragm fatigue occurred in 11 of 19 men (58%) and 8 of 19 women (42%). The percent drop in Pdi,tw at 10, 30, and 60 min after exercise in men (n = 11) was 30.6 +/- 2.3, 20.7 +/- 3.2, and 13.3 +/- 4.5%, respectively, whereas results in women (n = 8) were 21.0 +/- 2.1, 11.6 +/- 2.9, and 9.7 +/- 4.2%, respectively, with sex differences occurring at 10 and 30 min (P < 0.05). Men continued to have a reduced contribution of the diaphragm to total inspiratory force output (pressure-time product of the diaphragm/pressure-time product of the esophagus) during exercise, whereas diaphragmatic contribution in women changed very little over time. The findings from this study point to a female diaphragm that is more resistant to fatigue relative to their male counterparts.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".