Sex differences in the intensity and qualitative dimensions of exertional dyspnea in physically active young adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding sex differences in the qualitative dimensions of exertional dyspnea may provide insight into why women are more affected by this symptom than men. This study explored the evolution of the qualitative dimensions of dyspnea in 70 healthy, young, physically active adults (35 M and 35 F). Participants rated the intensity of their breathing discomfort (Borg 0-10 scale) and selected phrases that best described their breathing from a standardized list (work/effort, unsatisfied inspiration, and unsatisfied expiration) throughout each stage of a symptom-limited incremental-cycle exercise test. Following exercise, participants selected phrases that described their breathing at maximal exercise from a list of 15 standardized phrases. Intensity of breathing discomfort was significantly higher in women for a given ventilation, but differences disappeared when ventilation was expressed as a percentage of maximum voluntary ventilation. The dominant qualitative descriptor in both sexes throughout exercise was increased work/effort of breathing. At peak exercise, women were significantly more likely to select the following phrases: "my breathing feels shallow," "I cannot get enough air in," "I cannot take a deep breath in," and "my breath does not go in all the way." Women adopted a more rapid and shallow breathing pattern and had significantly higher end-inspiratory lung volumes relative to total lung capacity throughout exercise relative to men. These findings suggest that men and women do not differ in their perceived quality of dyspnea during submaximal exercise, but subjective differences appear at maximal exercise and may be related, at least in part, to underlying sex differences in breathing patterns and operating lung volumes during exercise.
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) | 0.001 | 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".