Qualitative dimensions of exertional dyspnea in adults with cystic fibrosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
No studies of cystic fibrosis (CF) have systematically characterized the evolution of the qualitative dimensions of exertional dyspnea. Adults with CF (n = 25) and control individuals matched for sex, age, and body mass index (n = 25) underwent cardiopulmonary cycle exercise testing with a detailed evaluation of ventilatory and dyspnea responses. The qualitative dimensions of dyspnea were examined during each exercise stage by having subjects select phrases that best described their breathing (i.e., "work/effort," "unsatisfied inspiration," and "unsatisfied expiration"). Subjects also selected phrases that described the quality of their breathing at peak exercise using an established 15-item questionnaire, which was then clustered into different categories. Subjects with CF had greater ventilatory requirements, higher end-inspiratory and end-expiratory lung volumes (% total lung capacity), and an earlier inflection/plateau in tidal volume during exercise compared with control subjects. Increased work/effort was the dominant qualitative descriptor in both groups throughout exercise. Unsatisfied inspiration was selected by 48% of subjects with CF and 40% of controls at some point during exercise. The onset of unsatisfied inspiration in these subjects occurred at a significantly lower relative exercise intensity in subjects with CF vs. controls (72 ± 21 vs. 94 ± 11% Wmax, P < 0.01). Chest tightness was the only qualitative descriptor cluster that was selected more frequently by subjects with CF vs. controls (36 vs. 0%, respectively, P < 0.05) at peak exercise. Therapeutic interventions that reduce ventilatory requirements and improve lung volumes may delay the onset of distressing sensations such as unsatisfied inspiration and chest tightness in adults with CF.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".