Inhaled salbutamol does not affect athletic performance in asthmatic and non-asthmatic cyclists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Salbutamol may affect lung function and exercise performance differently in individuals with and without asthma. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of inhaled salbutamol on lung function, exercise performance and respiratory parameters during cycling exercise in athletes with a positive response to a eucapnic voluntary hyperpnoea (EVH+) and negative (EVH-) challenge, indicative of exercise-induced bronchoconstriction. METHODS: In a randomised controlled trial with a crossover design, a total of 49 well-trained male athletes (14 EVH+ and 35 EVH-) performed two simulated 10 km time-trials on a cycle ergometer 60 min after the inhalation of either 400 μg of salbutamol or a placebo. Lung function, assessed by forced expiratory volume in 1 s, was measured immediately before and 30 min after inhalation. Performance was measured by mean power output. MEASUREMENTS & MAIN RESULTS: Despite a significant increase in lung function after the inhalation of salbutamol compared to the placebo (p<0.001), salbutamol did not affect athletes' perceptions of dyspnoea (p>0.05) or leg exertion (p>0.05) during exercise. Salbutamol did not affect mean power output: EVH+ and EVH- athletes averaged 4.0 (0.5) and 4.1 (0.5) W/kg after salbutamol and 4.0 (0.5) W/kg and 4.0 (0.4) W/kg after placebo, respectively (p>0.05 for each comparison). CONCLUSIONS: The inhalation of salbutamol induced a significant increase in resting lung function in EVH+ and EVH- athletes but this improvement in lung function did not translate to improved exercise performance. Salbutamol had no discernible effect on key ventilatory and exercise parameters regardless of EVH challenge outcome.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".