Changes in Respiratory Effort Sensation Over Time Are Linked to the Frequency Content of Diaphragm Electrical Activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluated whether respiratory effort sensation (RES) changes over time when breathing is performed with constant contraction pattern, fixed diaphragm activation, and maintained pressure generation. Another aim was to assess whether there was any association between RES and the power spectrum center frequency of the diaphragm (CFdi) electrical activity. Six healthy subjects performed two 10-min periods targeting diaphragm electrical activation (EAdi) to 40% of maximum using (1) expulsive or Mueller maneuvers at FRC generating a mean transdiaphragmatic (Pdi) pressure of 55.0 +/- 22.7 cm H(2)O (+/- SD) and (2) inspiration to 71.2 +/- 14.1% of inspiratory capacity (IC) generating a Pdi of 21.4 +/- 5.2 cm H(2)O. The Pdi did not decrease over time during either maneuver. During both periods RES increased (p < 0.001) and CFdi decreased (p < 0.001) over time with higher Pdi levels producing larger decreases in CFdi (p = 0.003) and greater increases in RES (p = 0.008). Changes in CFdi and RES were related, and identical slopes were obtained during the two maneuvers. In conclusion, while breathing with a fixed pattern, constant diaphragm activation, and maintained pressure generation, RES increases over time and is associated with CFdi independent of the level of diaphragm pressure generated.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".