MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119133992 · doi:10.1152/ajpregu.00078.2009

Sex differences in the resistive and elastic work of breathing during exercise in endurance-trained athletes

2009· article· en· W2119133992 on OpenAlexaff
Jordan A. Guenette, Jordan S. Querido, Neil D. Eves, Romeo Chua, A. William Sheel

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVentilation (architecture)Work of breathingTidal volumeResistive touchscreenCardiologyAthletesRespiratory minute volumeInternal medicinePhysical therapyRespiratory system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is not known whether the high total work of breathing (WOB) in exercising women is higher due to differences in the resistive or elastic WOB. Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to determine which factors contribute to the higher total WOB during exercise in women. We performed a comprehensive analysis of previous data from 16 endurance-trained subjects (8 men and 8 women) that underwent a progressive cycle exercise test to exhaustion. Esophageal pressure, lung volumes, and ventilatory parameters were continuously monitored throughout exercise. Modified Campbell diagrams were used to partition the esophageal-pressure volume data into inspiratory and expiratory resistive and elastic components at 50, 75, 100 l/min and maximal ventilations and also at three standardized submaximal work rates (3.0, 3.5, and 4.0 W/kg). The total WOB was also compared between sexes at relative submaximal ventilations (25, 50, and 75% of maximal ventilation). The inspiratory resistive WOB at 50, 75, and 100 l/min was 67, 89, and 109% higher in women, respectively (P < 0.05). The expiratory resistive WOB was 131% higher in women at 75 l/min (P < 0.05) with no differences at 50 or 100 l/min. There were no significant sex differences in the inspiratory or expiratory elastic WOB across any absolute minute ventilation. However, the total WOB was 120, 60, 50, and 45% higher in men at 25, 50, 75, and 100% of maximal exercise ventilation, respectively (P < 0.05). This was due in large part to their much higher tidal volumes and thus higher inspiratory elastic WOB. When standardized for a given work rate to body mass ratio, the total WOB was significantly higher in women at 3.5 W/kg (239 +/- 31 vs. 173 +/- 12 J/min, P < 0.05) and 4 W/kg (387 +/- 53 vs. 243 +/- 36 J/min, P < 0.05), and this was due exclusively to a significantly higher inspiratory and expiratory resistive WOB rather than differences in the elastic WOB. The higher total WOB in women at absolute ventilations and for a given work rate to body mass ratio is due to a substantially higher resistive WOB, and this is likely due to smaller female airways relative to males and a breathing pattern that favors a higher breathing frequency.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.900
Threshold uncertainty score0.924

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.270 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations106
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative PhysiologySame topicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchFrench-language works237,207