Pulmonary Artery Wedge Pressure Relative to Exercise Work Rate in Older Men and Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: An augmented pulmonary artery wedge pressure (PAWP) response may explain exercise intolerance in some humans. However, routine use of exercise hemodynamic testing is limited by a lack of data from normal older men and women. Our objective was to evaluate the exercise PAWP response and the potential for sexual dimorphism in healthy, nondyspneic older adults. METHODS: Thirty-six healthy volunteers (18 men [54 ± 7 yr] and 18 women [58 ± 6 yr]) were studied at rest (control) and during two stages of semi-upright cycle ergometry, at heart rates of 100 bpm (light exercise) and 120 bpm (moderate exercise). Right heart catheterization was performed to measure pulmonary pressures. The PAWP response to exercise was assessed in context of exercise work rate and body size. RESULTS: At control, PAWP was similar between men and women. Work rates were significantly smaller in women at comparable HR (P < 0.001). PAWP increased similarly at light exercise, with no further increase at moderate exercise. When indexed to work rate alone or work rate adjusted to body weight and height, the PAWP response at light and moderate exercise was significantly elevated in women compared with men (P < 0.05 condition-sex interaction). The change in PAWP relative to the increase in cardiac output did not exceed 2 mm Hg·L·min in any volunteer at moderate exercise. CONCLUSIONS: The similar rise in the PAWP response to submaximal exercise occurs despite lower work rate in healthy older women compared with men, even when adjusted for smaller body size. It is important to consider sex in the development of normal reference ranges for exercise hemodynamic testing.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".