Chemical and mechanical adaptations of the respiratory system at rest and during exercise in human pregnancy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human pregnancy is characterized by significant increases in ventilatory drive both at rest and during exercise. The increased ventilation and attendant hypocapnia of pregnancy has been attributed primarily to the stimulatory effects of female sex hormones (progesterone and estrogen) on central and peripheral chemoreflex drives to breathe. However, recent research from our laboratory suggests that hormone-mediated increases in neural (or non-chemoreflex) drives to breathe may contribute importantly to the hyperventilation of pregnancy. This review challenges traditional views of ventilatory control, and outlines an alternative hypothesis of the control of breathing during human pregnancy that is currently being tested in our laboratory. Conventional wisdom suggests that pregnancy-induced increases in central respiratory motor output command in combination with progressive thoraco-abdominal distortion may compromise the normal mechanical response of the respiratory system to exercise, increase the perception of exertional breathlessness, and curtail aerobic exercise performance in otherwise healthy pregnant women. The majority of available evidence suggests, however, that neither pregnancy nor advancing gestation are associated with reduced aerobic working capacity or increased breathlessness at any given work rate or ventilation during exhaustive weight-supported exercise.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".