Effect of a patent foramen ovale on pulmonary gas exchange efficiency at rest and during exercise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The prevalence of a patent foramen ovale (PFO) is ~30%, and this source of right-to-left shunt could result in greater pulmonary gas exchange impairment at rest and during exercise. The aim of this work was to determine if individuals with an asymptomatic PFO (PFO+) have greater pulmonary gas exchange inefficiency at rest and during exercise than subjects without a PFO (PFO-). Separated by 1 h of rest, 8 PFO+ and 8 PFO- subjects performed two incremental cycle ergometer exercise tests to voluntary exhaustion while breathing either room air or hypoxic gas [fraction of inspired O(2) (FI(O(2))) = 0.12]. Using echocardiography, we detected small, intermittent boluses of saline contrast bubbles entering directly into the left atrium within 3 heart beats at rest and during both exercise conditions in PFO+. These findings suggest a qualitatively small intracardiac shunt at rest and during exercise in PFO+. The alveolar-to-arterial oxygen difference (AaDo(2)) was significantly (P < 0.05) different between PFO+ and PFO- in normoxia (5.9 ± 5.1 vs. 0.5 ± 3.5 mmHg) and hypoxia (10.1 ± 5.9 vs. 4.1 ± 3.1 mmHg) at rest, but not during exercise. However, arterial oxygen saturation was significantly different between PFO+ and PFO- at peak exercise in normoxia (94.3 ± 0.9 vs. 95.8 ± 1.0%) as a result of a significant difference in esophageal temperature (38.4 ± 0.3 vs. 38.0 ± 0.3°C). An asymptomatic PFO contributes to pulmonary gas exchange inefficiency at rest but not during exercise in healthy humans and therefore does not explain intersubject variability in the AaDO(2) at maximal 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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".