Effect of acute increases in pulmonary vascular pressures on exercise pulmonary gas exchange
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of acute increases in pulmonary vascular pressures, caused by the application of lower-body positive pressure (LBPP), on exercise alveolar-to-arterial PO2 difference (A-aDO2), anatomical intrapulmonary (IP) shunt recruitment, and ventilation. Eight healthy men performed graded upright cycling to 90% maximal oxygen uptake under normal conditions and with 52 Torr (1 psi) of LBPP. Pulmonary arterial (PAP) and pulmonary artery wedge pressures (PAWP) were measured with a Swan-Ganz catheter. Arterial blood samples were obtained from a radial artery catheter, cardiac output was calculated by the direct Fick method, and anatomical IP shunt was determined by administering agitated saline during continuous two-dimensional echocardiography. LBPP increased both PAP and PAWP while upright at rest, and at all points during exercise (mean increase in PAP and PAWP 3.7 and 4.0 mmHg, respectively, P<0.05). There were no differences in exercise oxygen uptake or cardiac output between control and LBPP. Despite the increased PAP and PAWP with LBPP, A-aDO2 was not affected. In the upright resting position, there was no evidence of shunt in the control condition, whereas LBPP caused shunt in one subject. At the lowest exercise workload (75 W), shunt occurred in three subjects during control and in four subjects with LBPP. LBPP did not affect IP shunt recruitment during subsequent higher workloads. Minute ventilation and arterial PcO2 were not consistently affected by LBPP. Therefore, small acute increases in pulmonary vascular pressures do not widen exercise A-aDO2 or consistently affect IP shunt recruitment or ventilation.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".