MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2909983964 · doi:10.1113/jp277476

Manipulation of mechanical ventilatory constraint during moderate intensity exercise does not influence dyspnoea in healthy older men and women

2018· article· en· W2909983964 on OpenAlexafffund
Yannick Molgat‐Seon, Andrew H. Ramsook, Carli M. Peters, Michele R. Schaeffer, Paolo B. Dominelli, Lee M. Romer, Jeremy Road, Jordan A. Guenette, A. William Sheel

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physiology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMedicineIntensity (physics)Ventilation (architecture)Physical therapyWork of breathingVentilatory thresholdCardiologyExercise intensityPhysical medicine and rehabilitationInternal medicineMechanical ventilationVO2 maxHeart rateBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Key points The perceived intensity of exertional breathlessness (i.e. dyspnoea) is higher in older women than in older men, possibly as a result of sex‐differences in respiratory system morphology. During exercise at a given absolute intensity or minute ventilation, older women have a greater degree of mechanical ventilatory constraint (i.e. work of breathing and expiratory flow limitation) than their male counterparts, which may lead to a greater perceived intensity of dyspnoea. Using a single‐blind randomized study design, we experimentally manipulated the magnitude of mechanical ventilatory constraint during moderate‐intensity exercise at ventilatory threshold in healthy older men and women. We found that changes in the magnitude of mechanical ventilatory constraint within the physiological range had no effect on dyspnoea in healthy older adults. When older men and women perform moderate intensity exercise, mechanical ventilatory constraint does not contribute significantly to the sensation of dyspnoea. Abstract We aimed to determine the effect of manipulating mechanical ventilatory constraint during submaximal exercise on dyspnoea in older men and women. Eighteen healthy subjects (aged 60–80 years; nine men and nine women) completed two days of testing. On day 1, subjects were assessed for pulmonary function and performed a maximal incremental cycle exercise test. On day 2, subjects performed three 6‐min bouts of cycling at ventilatory threshold, in a single‐blind randomized manner, while breathing: (i) normoxic helium‐oxygen (HEL) to reduce the work of breathing (Wb) and alleviate expiratory flow limitation (EFL); (ii) through an inspiratory resistance (RES) of ∼5 cmH2O L−1 s−1 to increase Wb; and (iii) ambient air as a control (CON). Oesophageal pressure, diaphragm electromyography, and sensory responses (category‐ratio 10 Borg scale) were monitored throughout exercise. During the HEL condition, there was a significant decrease in Wb (men: –21 ± 6%, women: –17 ± 10%) relative to CON (both P < 0.01). Moreover, if EFL was present during CON (four men and five women), it was alleviated during HEL. Conversely, during the RES condition, Wb (men: 42 ± 19%, women: 50 ± 16%) significantly increased relative to CON (both P < 0.01). There was no main effect of sex on Wb (P = 0.59). Across conditions, women reported significantly higher dyspnoea intensity than men (2.9 ± 0.9 vs. 1.9 ± 0.8 Borg scale units, P < 0.05). Despite significant differences in the degree of mechanical ventilatory constraint between conditions, the intensity of dyspnoea was unaffected, independent of sex (P = 0.46). When older men and women perform moderate intensity exercise, mechanical ventilatory constraint does not contribute significantly to the sensation of dyspnoea.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations29
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Physiology→Same topicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research→French-language works237,207→