Assessement of eucapnic voluntary hyperventilation response in asymptomatic SCUBA divers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SCUBA diving is a popular, yet potentially dangerous sport. Exercice, increased oxygen partial pressure and gas density, as well as saline microaspirations are only a few factors that may precipitate bronchoconstriction in SCUBA divers. The resulting air entrapment may have catastrophic consequences such as pneumothorax, pneumomediastinum, and tympanic perforation. Eucapnic voluntary hyperventilation (EVH) has been increasingly used to evaluate the risk of exercise-induced bronchoconstriction (EIB). However, result interpretation has been hampered by the lack of data pertaining to the expected response of asymptomatic individuals to EVH, as well as the lack of a defined gold standard. 10 asymptomatic SCUBA divers having perfomed at least ten dives in the last three years, with no diving-related respiratory complications and no identified air trapping on spirometry were questioned and performed EVH. The average subject was 29.56 years old. Average FEV 1 and FEV 1 /FVC values were 3.62L and 0.80, respectively. EVH was performed using a standardised approach as suggested by Argyros et al . All participants reached a satisfactory voluntary minute ventilation defined by attaining a minute ventilation greater than 30 times the FEV 1 for 6 minutes. Post-EVH FEV 1 values decreased in all but one participant by an average of 4.67% (Range: 0 - 8%). In conclusion, our data provides evidence that EVH is a specific test; moreover, post-EVH FEV 1 decreases of less than 10% is an appropriate cut-off in ruling out EIB in low-risk individuals.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".