MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2314158787 · doi:10.1155/2004/601014

Seasonal Fluctuations in Airway Responsiveness in Elite Endurance Athletes

2004· article· en· W2314158787 on OpenAlexaff
Howard B. Hemingson, Beth E. Davis, Donald W. Cockcroft

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Respiratory Journal · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory and Cough-Related Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAirwayAthletesElite athletesPhysical therapyEndurance trainingAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: It has been suggested that exposure to winter training conditions (irritants in indoor facilities and/or cold, dry air in the outdoors) can increase airway responsiveness in elite endurance athletes. OBJECTIVES: It has yet to be elucidated whether elite endurance athletes experience seasonal fluctuations in their airway responsiveness. METHODS: Eighteen members of a varsity cross-country running team underwent screening procedures and five members were enrolled in the study. Each athlete completed a respiratory and training questionnaire, and underwent allergy skin prick testing. Airway responsiveness was evaluated using a methacholine challenge on four occasions. RESULTS: The participants demonstrated a significant (more than twofold) increase in airway responsiveness (P=0.0496) during the first winter evaluation compared with the autumn baseline. The second winter evaluation still showed an increase but it was not statistically significant. Airway responsiveness had returned to baseline (autumn) values at spring testing. CONCLUSION: Elite endurance athletes experience seasonal fluctuations in airway responsiveness. The specific stimuli that cause this are unknown, but it is speculated to be due to exposure to cold, dry air and/or inhaled irritants that may be present in indoor training facilities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.284
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Respiratory JournalSame topicRespiratory and Cough-Related ResearchFrench-language works237,207