Evidence of pulmonary oedema triggered by exercise in healthy humans and detected with various imaging techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This review summarizes current literature on pulmonary oedema triggered by above-ground exercise in healthy humans from studies that use various imaging techniques to detect oedema. Eleven studies were identified, comprising of 137 subjects (mean age = 28 years). Eighty per cent (n = 110) were males, and 20% (n = 27) were female. The studies were grouped into three different categories according to the severity of the exercise protocol, which were either prolonged, submaximal exercise of 15-min to 2 h in duration at approx. 50-75%VO(2max) and not to exhaustion (PROLONGED, n = 44), a VO(2max) test lasting 16-20 min in which the intensity of exercise was only maximum for about 2 min at the end of the test (GXT, n = 15), and maximum or near maximum effort exercise protocols at or near volitional exhaustion where the goal was to finish in the fastest possible time or maintain the highest possible workload (MAX EFFORT, n = 78). Only 16% of the subjects showed signs of oedema from PROLONGED exercise and no subjects (0%) showed signs of oedema from GXT exercise. Surprisingly, approx. 65% of the subjects showed signs of oedema triggered by MAX EFFORT exercise (chi(2) test of association; P < or = 0.01), which was independent of both sex, the level of hypoxia (inspired PO(2) = 106-118 mmHg vs. 149 mmHg), the timing of the post-exercise imaging (<10, >30 but <60 min, or >60 min) and VO(2max) (approx. 3.0 vs. approx. 4.8 L min(-1)). The data suggests that the chances of triggering pulmonary oedema from exhaustive MAX EFFORT exercise is 4x more compared with PROLONGED exercise. As well, the likelihood of triggering pulmonary oedema may be independent of lung size, sex, moderate levels of hypoxia, and aerobic fitness.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".