Respiratory mechanics during exercise in endurance‐trained men and women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare the mechanics of breathing including the measurement of expiratory flow limitation, end-expiratory lung volume, end-inspiratory lung volume, and the work of breathing in endurance-trained men (n=8) and women (n=10) during cycle exercise. Expiratory flow limitation was assessed by applying a negative expiratory pressure at the mouth. End-expiratory lung volume and end-inspiratory lung volume were determined by having subjects perform inspiratory capacity manoeuvres. Transpulmonary pressure, taken as the difference between oesophageal and airway opening pressure, was plotted against volume and integrated to determine the work of breathing. Expiratory flow limitation occurred in nine females (90%) and three males (43%) during the final stage of exercise. Females had a higher relative end-expiratory lung volume (42+/-8 versus 35+/-5% forced vital capacity (FVC)) and end-inspiratory lung volume (88+/-5 versus 82+/-7% FVC) compared to males at maximal exercise (P<0.05). Women also had a higher work of breathing compared to men across a range of ventilations. On average, women had a work of breathing that was twice that of men at ventilations above 90 l min(-1). These data suggest that expiratory flow limitation may be more common in females and that they experience greater relative increases in end-expiratory lung volume and end-inspiratory lung volume at maximal exercise compared to males. The higher work of breathing in women is probably attributed to their smaller lung volumes and smaller diameter airways. Collectively, these findings suggest that women utilize a greater majority of their ventilatory reserve compared to men and this is associated with a higher cost of breathing.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".