Physiological mechanisms of exertional dyspnea relief following bariatric surgery for severe obesity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to elucidate the physiological mechanisms of exertional dyspnea relief following weight loss for severe obesity. To this end, we compared detailed physiological and perceptual responses to symptom-limited incremental cycle exercise testing in 6 adults (3 W) mean±SE aged 44±3 yrs before (PRE) and 3-mo after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery (POST), which decreased body mass by 24 kg (129±6 vs.106±6 kg), body mass index by 9 kg/m2 (47±2 vs. 38±2 kg/m2) and fat mass by 19 kg (62±5 vs. 43±5 kg). Peak power output was similar in POST vs. PRE (154±21 vs. 133±11 W). With few exceptions, heart rate, oxygen uptake and ventilation (V̇E) were lower during exercise in POST vs. PRE. Inspiratory capacity (IC) decreased by 0.13 L and increased by 0.21 L from rest to peak exercise in PRE and POST, respectively. Inspiratory reserve volume (IRV) was lower at any given V̇E during exercise in POST vs. PRE, reflecting the combination of differences in the behavior of dynamic IC and adoption of a relatively deep and slow breathing pattern during exercise in POST. Dyspnea ratings were lower during exercise at standardized submaximal power outputs greater than 75W in POST vs. PRE, whereas dyspnea-V̇E relationships were superimposed. Dyspnea-IRV relationships were rightward shifted during exercise in POST vs. PRE, such that dyspnea ratings were lower at any given IRV during exercise in POST vs. PRE. In conclusion, relief of exertional dyspnea following bariatric surgery could not be explained by improved dynamic breathing mechanics, but reflected the awareness of reduced V̇E during exercise.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".