Physiological mechanisms of dyspnea during exercise with external thoracic restriction: Role of increased neural respiratory drive
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We tested the hypothesis that neuromechanical uncoupling of the respiratory system forms the mechanistic basis of dyspnea during exercise in the setting of "abnormal" restrictive constraints on ventilation (VE). To this end, we examined the effect of chest wall strapping (CWS) sufficient to mimic a "mild" restrictive lung deficit on the interrelationships between VE, breathing pattern, dynamic operating lung volumes, esophageal electrode-balloon catheter-derived measures of the diaphragm electromyogram (EMGdi) and the transdiaphragmatic pressure time product (PTPdi), and sensory intensity and unpleasantness ratings of dyspnea during exercise. Twenty healthy men aged 25.7 ± 1.1 years (means ± SE) completed symptom-limited incremental cycle exercise tests under two randomized conditions: unrestricted control and CWS to reduce vital capacity (VC) by 21.6 ± 0.5%. Compared with control, exercise with CWS was associated with 1) an exaggerated EMGdi and PTPdi response; 2) no change in the relationship between EMGdi and each of tidal volume (expressed as a percentage of VC), inspiratory reserve volume, and PTPdi, thus indicating relative preservation of neuromechanical coupling; 3) increased sensory intensity and unpleasantness ratings of dyspnea; and 4) no change in the relationship between increasing EMGdi and each of the intensity and unpleasantness of dyspnea. In conclusion, the increased intensity and unpleasantness of dyspnea during exercise with CWS could not be readily explained by increased neuromechanical uncoupling but likely reflected the awareness of increased neural respiratory drive (EMGdi) needed to achieve any given VE during exercise in the setting of "abnormal" restrictive constraints on tidal volume expansion.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".