Is Performance of a Modified Eucapnic Voluntary Hyperpnea Test in High Ventilation Athletes Reproducible?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Exercise-induced bronchoconstriction (EIB) is common in "high ventilation" athletes, and the Eucapnic Voluntary Hyperpnea (EVH) airway provocation test is the standard EIB screen. Although the EVH test is widely used, the in-test performance in high ventilation athletes as well as the reproducibility of that performance has not been determined. Reproducibility of pre- and post-test spirometry and self-reported atopy/cough was also examined. METHODS: High ventilation athletes (competitive swimmers; n=11, 5 males) completed an atopy/cough questionnaire and EVH testing (operator controlled FiCO₂) on 2 consecutive days. RESULTS: Swimmers achieved 85%±9% and 87%±9% of target FEV1 volume on days 1 and 2, respectively, (P=0.45; ICC 0.57 [0.00-0.86]) resulting in a total ventilation of 687 vs 684 L [P=0.89, ICC 0.89 (0.65-0.97]) equating to 83%±8% and 84%±9% of predicted total volume (ICC 0.54 [0.00-0.85]) between days 1 and 2. FiCO₂ required to maintain eucapnic conditions was 2.5%. Pre-test FEV1 was less on day 2 (P=0.04; ICC >0.90). Day 1 to 2 post-test FEV1 was not different, and 4 swimmers were EIB positive (>10% fall in pre-post FEV1) on day 1 (3 on day 2). CONCLUSIONS: EVH in-test performance is reproducible however required less FiCO₂ than standard protocol and the swimmers under-ventilated by 125 and 139 L/min for days 1 and 2, respectively. How this affects EIB diagnosis remains to be determined; however, our results indicate a post-test FEV1 fall of ≥20% may be recommended as the most consistent diagnostic criterion.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".