Exercise-induced flow limitation, dynamic hyperinflation and exercise capacity in patients with bronchial asthma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is known that, in stable asthmatics at rest, tidal expiratory flow limitation (EFL) and dynamic hyperinflation (DH) are seldom present. This study investigated whether stable asthmatics develop tidal EFL and DH during exercise with concurrent limitation of maximal exercise work rate (WRmax). A total of 20 asthmatics in a stable condition and aged 32+/-13 yrs (mean+/-SD) with a forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) of 101+/-21% of the predicted value were studied. Only three patients exhibited an FEV1 below the normal limits. On a first visit, patients performed a symptom-limited incremental (20 W.min(-1)) bicycle exercise test. On the second visit, the occurrence of EFL (using the negative expiratory pressure technique) and DH (via reduction in inspiratory capacity) were assessed at rest and when cycling at 33, 66 and 90% of their predetermined WRmax. FEV1 was measured to detect exercise-induced asthma, 5 and 15 min after stopping exercise at 90% WRmax. Only one patient showed EFL at rest, whereas 13 showed EFL and DH during exercise. In these 13 asthmatics, exercise capacity was significantly reduced (WRmax 75+/-9% pred) compared to the seven non-EFL patients (WRmax 95+/-13% pred). Moreover, a significant correlation of WRmax (% pred) to the change in inspiratory capacity (percentage of resting value) from rest to 90% WRmax was found. Tidal EFL during exercise was not associated with exercise-induced asthma, which was detected in only three patients. In conclusion, tidal expiratory flow limitation and dynamic hyperinflation during exercise are common in stable asthmatics with normal spirometric results and without exercise-induced asthma, and may contribute to reduction in exercise capacity.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".