MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Does Competitive Swimming During Puberty Affect Lung Development?

2017· article· en· W2618118588 on OpenAlexaff
Joshua M. Bovard, Joseph F. Welch, Kristin Houghton, Donald C. McKenzie, James E. Potts, A. William Sheel

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpirometrySexual maturityDLCOMedicineLung volumesInternal medicineLung functionLungPulmonary function testingVital capacityAnalysis of varianceEndocrinologyAnimal scienceDiffusing capacityBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Whether or not competitive swimming (CS) accentuates lung development beyond genetically endowed growth has been widely debated. PURPOSE: Given that peak growth velocities for the lungs occur during puberty, this longitudinal study aimed to determine if one season of CS affected lung development in pubertal females. METHODS: Female swimmers (SWIM; n=11, 3.3±1.7 y of CS experience, 19±8 km swimming/week) and healthy active controls (CON; n=10) underwent pulmonary function testing before (PRE) and after (POST) one season of CS (7.3±0.5 months). The groups were matched for age (SWIM 12.4±0.8 vs CON 13.2±1.3; p=0.10), height (PRE 161±8 vs 158±7, POST 163±7 vs 161±7 cm; p=0.38) and weight (PRE 52±11 vs 46±5, POST 56±10 vs 49±6 kg; p=0.10). Sexual maturity rating was self-reported to be pubertal (Tanner stages 2-4) for all of the SWIM and 90% of CON. Changes in lung volumes, spirometry, diffusion capacity (DLCO), and maximal inspiratory (MIP) and expiratory (MEP) mouth pressures were compared using 2-way mixed model ANOVA. RESULTS: Despite having a similar body size as controls, swimmers had a larger total lung capacity (TLC; PRE 4.73±0.73 vs 3.93±0.46, POST 5.08±0.68 vs 4.19±0.64 l; p < 0.01). Forced vital capacity (PRE 3.92±0.71 vs 3.13±0.50, POST 4.15±0.61 vs 3.28±0.54 l; p < 0.01) and peak expiratory flow (PRE 6.48±0.92 vs 5.70±0.86, POST 6.97±0.84 vs 6.00±0.77 l/s; p=0.03) were higher in SWIM. Although DLCO was greater in SWIM (PRE 23.4±2.6 vs 20.7±1.9, POST 24.1±1.9 vs 21.0±3.2 ml/min/mmHg; p=0.01), there was no difference when expressed relative to alveolar volume (PRE 5.1±0.6 vs 5.4±0.4, POST 4.9±0.6 vs 5.2±0.4 ml/min/mmHg/l; p=0.20). Both MIP (PRE 87±26 vs 71±24, POST 103±22 vs 79±26 cm H2O, p=0.06) and MEP (PRE 112±17 vs 98±18, POST 114±13 vs 84±19 cm H2O; p < 0.001) were greater in SWIM. Changes from PRE to POST were similar between groups (interactions p > 0.05). No association between CS training volume (km/week) and change in lung size (delta TLC) (r=-0.02, p=0.95) was found. CONCLUSION: This data shows that pubertal female swimmers already had larger lung capacities, higher flows, and greater indices of respiratory muscle strength compared to matched controls. One season of CS did not further accentuate this enhanced function, suggesting that CS during puberty did not affect lung development. Support: 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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.297 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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