Mechanisms of exertional dyspnoea in symptomatic smokers without COPD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dyspnoea and activity limitation can occur in smokers who do not meet spirometric criteria for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) but the underlying mechanisms are unknown.Detailed pulmonary function tests and sensory-mechanical relationships during incremental exercise with respiratory pressure measurements and diaphragmatic electromyography (EMGdi) were compared in 20 smokers without spirometric COPD and 20 age-matched healthy controls.Smokers (mean±sd post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1)/forced vital capacity 75±4%, mean±sd FEV1 104±14% predicted) had greater activity-related dyspnoea, poorer health status and lower physical activity than controls. Smokers had peripheral airway dysfunction: higher phase-III nitrogen slopes (3.8±1.8 versus 2.6±1.1%·L(-1)) and airway resistance (difference between airway resistance measured at 5 Hz and 20 Hz 19±11 versus 12±7% at 5 Hz) than controls (p<0.05). Smokers had significantly (p<0.05) lower peak oxygen uptake (78±40 versus 107±45% predicted) and ventilation (61±26 versus 97±29 L·min(-1)). Exercise ventilatory requirements, operating lung volumes and cardio-circulatory responses were similar. However, submaximal dyspnoea ratings, resistive and total work of breathing were increased in smokers compared with controls (p<0.05); diaphragmatic effort (transdiaphragmatic pressure/maximumal transdiaphragmatic pressure) and fractional inspiratory neural drive to the diaphragm (EMGdi/maximal EMGdi) were also increased (p<0.05) mainly reflecting the reduced denominator.Symptomatic smokers at risk for COPD had greater exertional dyspnoea and lower exercise tolerance compared with healthy controls in association with greater airways resistance, contractile diaphragmatic effort and fractional inspiratory neural drive to the diaphragm.
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 | 0.002 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".