Inspiratory muscle weakness contributes to exertional dyspnea in chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Determination of potentially-reversible factors contributing to exertional dyspnea remains an unmet clinical need in chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH). Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the influence of inspiratory muscle weakness (IMW) on exercise capacity and dyspnea during effort in patients with CTEPH. We performed a prospective cross-sectional study that included thirty-nine consecutive patients with CTEPH (48 ± 15 yrs, 61% female) confirmed by right heart catheterization that underwent an incremental cardiopulmonary exercise test, 6-minute walk test and maximum inspiratory pressure (MIP) measurement. MIP < 70%pred was found in 46% of patients. On a multiple linear regression analysis, MIP was independently associated with 6MWD and [Formula: see text]. Patients with MIP < 70% presented greater [Formula: see text] than those with MIP ≥ 70%. Additionally, they also presented stronger sensations of dyspnea throughout exercise, even when adjusted for ventilation. At rest and at different levels of exercise, mean inspiratory flow (VT/TI) was significantly higher in patients with MIP < 70%. In conclusion, IMW is associated with a rapid increase of dyspnea, higher inspiratory load and poor exercise capacity in patients with CTEPH.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".