The effects of age and sex on mechanical ventilatory constraint and dyspnea during exercise in healthy humans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined the effects of age, sex, and their interaction on mechanical ventilatory constraint and dyspnea during exercise in 22 older (age = 68 ± 1 yr; n = 12 women) and 22 younger (age = 25 ± 1 y, n = 11 women) subjects. During submaximal exercise, older subjects had higher end-inspiratory (EILV) and end-expiratory (EELV) lung volumes than younger subjects (both P < 0.05). During maximal exercise, older subjects had similar EILV ( P > 0.05) but higher EELV than younger subjects ( P < 0.05). No sex differences in EILV or EELV were observed. We noted that women had a higher work of breathing (W b ) for a given minute ventilation (V̇e) ≥65 l/min than men ( P < 0.05) and older subjects had a higher W b for a given V̇e ≥60 l/min ( P < 0.05). No sex or age differences in W b were present at any submaximal relative V̇e. At absolute exercise intensities, older women experienced expiratory flow limitation (EFL) more frequently than older men ( P < 0.05), and older subjects were more likely to experience EFL than younger subjects ( P < 0.05). At relative exercise intensities, women and older individuals experienced EFL more frequently than men and younger individuals, respectively (both P < 0.05). There were significant effects of age, sex, and their interaction on dyspnea intensity during exercise at absolute, but not relative, intensities (all P < 0.05). Across subjects, dyspnea at 80 W was significantly correlated with indexes of mechanical ventilatory constraint (all P < 0.05). Collectively, our findings suggest age and sex have significant impacts on W b , operating lung volumes, EFL, and dyspnea during exercise. Moreover, it appears that mechanical ventilatory constraint may partially explain sex differences in exertional dyspnea in older individuals. NEW & NOTEWORTHY We found that age and sex have a significant effect on mechanical ventilatory constraint and the perception of dyspnea during exercise. We also observed that the perception of exertional dyspnea is associated with indexes of mechanical ventilatory constraint. Collectively, our results suggest that the combined influences of age and biological sex on mechanical ventilatory constraint during exercise contributes, in part, to the increased perception of dyspnea during exercise in older women.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".