Lung density is not altered following intense normobaric hypoxic interval training in competitive female cyclists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Noninvasive imaging techniques have been used to assess pulmonary edema following exercise but results remain equivocal. Most studies examining this phenomenon have used male subjects while the female response has received little attention. Some suggest that women, by virtue of their smaller lungs, airways, and diffusion surface areas may be more susceptible to pulmonary limitations during exercise. Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to determine if intense normobaric hypoxic exercise could induce pulmonary edema in women. Baseline lung density was obtained in eight highly trained female cyclists (mean +/- SD: age = 26 +/- 7 yr; height = 172.2 +/- 6.7 cm; mass = 64.1 +/- 6.7 kg; Vo(2max) = 52.2 +/- 2.2 ml.kg(-1).min(-1)) using computed tomography (CT). CT scans were obtained at the level of the aortic arch, the tracheal carina, and the superior end plate of the tenth thoracic vertebra. While breathing 15% O(2), subjects then performed five 2.5-km cycling intervals [mean power = 212 +/- 31 W; heart rate (HR) = 94.5 +/- 2.2%HRmax] separated by 5 min of recovery. Throughout the intervals, subjects desaturated to 82 +/- 4%, which was 13 +/- 2% below resting hypoxic levels. Scans were repeated 44 +/- 8 min following exercise. Mean lung density did not change from pre (0.138 +/- 0.014 g/ml)- to postexercise (0.137 +/- 0.011 g/ml). These findings suggest that pulmonary edema does not occur in highly trained females following intense normobaric hypoxic 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".