Dysanapsis and the resistive work of breathing during exercise in healthy men and women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We asked if the higher work of breathing (Wb) during exercise in women compared with men is explained by biological sex. We created a statistical model that accounts for both the viscoelastic and the resistive components of the total Wb and independently compares the effects of biological sex. We applied the model to esophageal pressure-derived Wb values obtained during an incremental cycle test to exhaustion. Subjects were healthy men (n = 17) and women (n = 18) with a range of maximal aerobic capacities (V̇o2 max range: men = 40-68 and women = 39-60 ml·kg(-1)·min(-1)). We also calculated the dysanapsis ratio using measures of lung recoil and forced expiratory flow as index of airway caliber. By applying the model we found that the differences in the total Wb during exercise in women are due to a higher resistive Wb rather than viscoelastic Wb. We also found that the higher resistive Wb is independently explained by biological sex. To account for the known effect of lung volumes on the dysanapsis ratio we compared the sexes with an analysis of covariance procedures and found that when vital capacity was accounted for the adjusted mean dysanapsis ratio is statistically lower in women (0.17 vs. 0.25 arbitrary units; P < 0.05). Our collective findings suggest that innate sex-based differences may exist in human airways, which result in significant male-female differences in the Wb during exercise in healthy subjects.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".