MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2747198313 · doi:10.1113/ep086566

Effects of respiratory muscle work on respiratory and locomotor blood flow during exercise

2017· article· en· W2747198313 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueExperimental Physiology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsProvidence Health Care Research InstituteProvidence Health CareUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São PauloCanadian Thoracic Society
KeywordsRespiratory systemBlood flowWork of breathingMedicineVentilation (architecture)AnesthesiaRespiratory physiologyInternal medicineCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

New Findings What is the central question of this study? Does manipulation of the work of breathing during high‐intensity exercise alter respiratory and locomotor muscle blood flow? What is the main finding and its importance? We found that when the work of breathing was reduced during exercise, respiratory muscle blood flow decreased, while locomotor muscle blood flow increased. Conversely, when the work of breathing was increased, respiratory muscle blood flow increased, while locomotor muscle blood flow decreased. Our findings support the theory of a competitive relationship between locomotor and respiratory muscles during intense exercise. Manipulation of the work of breathing (WOB) during near‐maximal exercise influences leg blood flow, but the effects on respiratory muscle blood flow are equivocal. We sought to assess leg and respiratory muscle blood flow simultaneously during intense exercise while manipulating WOB. Our hypotheses were as follows: (i) increasing the WOB would increase respiratory muscle blood flow and decrease leg blood flow; and (ii) decreasing the WOB would decrease respiratory muscle blood flow and increase leg blood flow. Eight healthy subjects ( n = 5 men, n = 3 women) performed a maximal cycle test (day 1) and a series of constant‐load exercise trials at 90% of peak work rate (day 2). On day 2, WOB was assessed with oesophageal balloon catheters and was increased (via resistors), decreased (via proportional assist ventilation) or unchanged (control) during the trials. Blood flow was assessed using near‐infrared spectroscopy optodes placed over quadriceps and the sternocleidomastoid muscles, coupled with a venous Indocyanine Green dye injection. Changes in WOB were significantly and positively related to changes in respiratory muscle blood flow ( r = 0.73), whereby increasing the WOB increased blood flow. Conversely, changes in WOB were significantly and inversely related to changes in locomotor blood flow ( r = 0.57), whereby decreasing the WOB increased locomotor blood flow. Oxygen uptake was not different during the control and resistor trials (3.8 ± 0.9 versus 3.7 ± 0.8 l min −1 , P > 0.05), but was lower on the proportional assist ventilator trial (3.4 ± 0.7 l min −1 , P < 0.05) compared with control. Our findings support the concept that respiratory muscle work significantly influences the distribution of blood flow to both respiratory and locomotor muscles.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.412
Threshold uncertainty score0.893

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.256 · 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