MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2883131576 · doi:10.1113/jp275794

Sex differences in diaphragmatic fatigue: the cardiovascular response to inspiratory resistance

2018· article· en· W2883131576 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

VenueThe Journal of Physiology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic Control
Canadian institutionsInternational Collaboration On Repair DiscoveriesProvidence Health Care Research InstituteProvidence Health CareUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyDiaphragmatic breathingBlood pressureInternal medicineHeart rateVascular resistanceVasomotorPhotoplethysmogramAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Key points Diaphragmatic fatigue (DF) elicits a sympathetically mediated metaboreflex resulting in increased heart rate, blood pressure and limb vascular resistance. Women may be more resistant to DF compared to men, and therefore it was hypothesised that women would experience an attenuated inspiratory muscle metaboreflex during inspiratory pressure‐threshold loading (PTL) performed to task failure. At the time of PTL task failure, the severity of DF was not different between sexes; however, inspiratory muscle endurance time was significantly longer in women than in men. For a given cumulative diaphragmatic force output, the severity of DF was less in women than in men. Women exhibited a blunted cardiovascular response to inspiratory resistance (i.e. metaboreflex) that may have implications for exercise tolerance. Abstract Diaphragmatic fatigue (DF) elicits reflexive increases in sympathetic vasomotor outflow (i.e. metaboreflex). There is some evidence suggesting women may be more resistant to DF compared to men, and therefore may experience an attenuated inspiratory muscle metaboreflex. To this end, we sought to examine the cardiovascular response to inspiratory resistance in healthy young men ( n = 9, age = 24 ± 3 years) and women ( n = 9, age = 24 ± 3 years). Subjects performed isocapnic inspiratory pressure‐threshold loading (PTL, 60% maximal inspiratory mouth pressure) to task failure. Diaphragmatic fatigue was assessed by measuring transdiaphragmatic twitch pressure ( P di,tw ) using cervical magnetic stimulation. Heart rate (HR) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) were measured beat‐by‐beat throughout PTL via photoplethysmography, and low‐frequency systolic pressure (LF SBP ; a surrogate for sympathetic vasomotor tone) calculated from arterial waveforms using power spectrum analysis. At PTL task failure, the degree of DF was similar between sexes (∼23% reduction in P di,tw ; P = 0.33). However, time to task failure was significantly longer in women than in men (27 ± 11 vs . 16 ± 11 min, respectively; P = 0.02). Women exhibited less of an increase in HR (13 ± 8 vs . 19 ± 12 bpm; P = 0.02) and MAP (10 ± 8 vs . 14 ± 9 mmHg; P = 0.01), and significantly lower LF SBP (23 ± 11 vs . 34 ± 8 mmHg 2 ; P = 0.04) during PTL compared to men. An attenuation of the inspiratory muscle metaboreflex may influence limb and respiratory muscle haemodynamics with implications for exercise performance.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score0.161

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.243 · 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