MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Effect of Inspiratory Resistive Loading on Expiratory Muscle Fatigue

2016· article· en· W2493029568 on OpenAlexaff
Carli M. Peters, Joseph F. Welch, Paolo B. Dominelli, Yannick Molgat‐Seon, Lee M. Romer, Donald C. McKenzie, A. William Sheel

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDiaphragm (acoustics)CardiologyAnesthesiaInternal medicineExpirationRespiratory system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Expiratory resistive loading elicits inspiratory as well as expiratory muscle fatigue, suggesting parallel co-activation of the inspiratory muscles during expiration. It is unknown whether the expiratory muscles are similarly co-activated to the point of fatigue during inspiratory resistive loading (IRL). PURPOSE: To determine whether IRL elicits expiratory as well as inspiratory muscle fatigue. METHODS: Healthy male subjects (n=9) underwent isocapnic IRL to task failure (60% maximal inspiratory pressure, 15 breaths/min, 0.7 inspiratory duty cycle). Abdominal and diaphragm contractile function was assessed at baseline and at 3, 15 and 30 min post-IRL by measuring gastric twitch pressure (Pga,tw) and transdiaphragmatic twitch pressure (Pdi,tw) in response to potentiated magnetic stimulation of the thoracic and phrenic nerves, respectively. Electromyographic activity of the diaphragm, rectus abdominis, and external oblique was monitored to ensure consistency of stimulation. Fatigue was defined as >15% reduction from baseline in Pga,tw or Pdi,tw. RESULTS: During IRL (mean±SE;15.0±2.5 min), mean arterial pressure (MAP) and heart rate (HR) increased in a time-dependent manner (13 mmHg and 50 beats/min for the final min, respectively). Peak Pdi was significantly lower during the final min of IRL than during the first min (p<0.05). Peak Pga did not change significantly throughout IRL. Pdi,tw was significantly lower than baseline (34.3±3.2 cmH2O) at 3 min (23.2±1.9 cmH2O, p<0.001), 15 min (24.2±1.7 cmH2O, p<0.001) and 30 min post-IRL (26.3±2.0 cmH2O, p<0.001). Pga,tw was not significantly different from baseline (37.6±5.7 cmH2O) at 3 min (36.5±4.9 cmH2O), 15 min (33.7±4.13 cmH2O) and 30 min post-IRL (32.9±3.8 cmH2O). CONCLUSION: IRL elicits objective evidence of diaphragm, but not abdominal, muscle fatigue. Agonist-antagonist interactions for the respiratory muscles appear to be more important during expiratory versus inspiratory loading. Funding: NSERC

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research→French-language works237,207→