Peak Expiratory Flow Rate and Premenstrual Symptoms in Healthy Nonasthmatic Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVES: To characterize intrasubject, intersubject, and diurnal variability in peak expiratory flow rates (PEFR) of healthy nonasthmatic women over at least one complete menstrual cycle; to determine whether a relationship exists between PEFR and premenstrual symptoms in these women; and to provide a forum to educate women pharmacy students by interactive study participation. DESIGN: Longitudinal, investigator-blinded study. SETTING: University of British Columbia and Children's and Women's Health Centre. PATIENTS: Forty healthy nonasthmatic female pharmacy students were enrolled, and 31 (aged 22.1+/-1.5 yrs) completed the study. INTERVENTION: Women were followed for at least one menstrual cycle during which they recorded premenstrual symptom questionnaire scores daily (15 mood and physical symptoms, graded 0-3 in severity). They also measured and recorded PEFR (3 consecutive attempts) every morning and every evening. A feedback survey was later administered by electronic mail. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-one women, 28 of whom were of Asian descent, completed the study. Over half of them (58.1%) showed classic patterns of premenstrual symptoms, whereas PEFR fluctuated randomly over the course of the cycle. Average coefficients of variation (CVs) were 4.17+/-2.09% for morning PEFR, 3.97+/-2.25% for evening PEFR, and 3.72+/-2.55% for mean daily PEFR. Average absolute diurnal variation was 17.13+/-12.46 L/minute, and relative diurnal variation was 3.98+/-2.52%. Intersubject variability for morning, evening, and mean daily PEFRs yielded low CVs of 13.7%, 14.3%, and 13.9%, respectively Only 14 (11.3%) of 124 correlations between PEFR and premenstrual symptoms were significant (p<0.05). Most participants responded positively (mean score 3.87 on a 5-point scale) to the survey on the impact of this study. CONCLUSION: Intrasubject and diurnal variability in PEFR are minimal in nonasthmatic women; similarly, intersubject variability is relatively low. The menstrual cycle appears to have little effect on PEFR in healthy nonasthmatic Asian women. Pharmacy students who take part in serial PEFR monitoring gain new appreciation for asthma and asthmatic patients.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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".