Impact of Gas Masks on Work of Breathing, Breathing Patterns, and Gas Exchange in Healthy Subjects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The gas mask is used to protect military and non-military personnel exposed to respiratory hazards (chemical, biologic, radiologic, and nuclear agents). The objective was to evaluate the impact of the gas mask on indexes of respiratory effort and breathing patterns in a human model because no data exist. METHODS: The design of the study was a crossover evaluation with four 10-min conditions in a randomized order: with and without wearing the gas mask when at rest and when exerting a standardized effort. During the studied conditions, 14 healthy subjects were evaluated for breathing patterns, indexes of respiratory effort (work of breathing, pressure-time product for esophageal pressure, and esophageal pressure swing) and capillary blood gases. Continuous S pO 2 was recorded during the tested conditions. RESULTS: The indexes of respiratory effort significantly increased when subjects wore the gas mask under the tested conditions (at rest and during effort). The work of breathing was significantly augmented with the mask (at rest, 0.40 ± 0.32 J/cycle vs 0.25 ± 0.10 J/cycle; effort, 5.96 ± 3.32 J/cycle vs 4.43 ± 2.50 J/cycle; P < .001). The other indexes of effort (esophageal pressure-time product and esophageal swing were all significantly increased, from 30 to 60%, with a gas mask in comparison with at baseline without a gas mask). The impact on breathing patterns and P aCO 2 was limited, without significant differences. Moderate hypoxemia was present during effort and was not increased by the gas mask. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated a substantial increase in the indicies of respiratory effort both at rest and during exercise with a gas mask. Our measurements and findings may be referred in future research and development studies in this field. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT02782936.)
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".