Ventilatory Demand During Stepping and Running: Implications for Exercise-Induced Bronchoconstriction in Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Single-step tests have been proposed as simple and inexpensive challenges to diagnose exercise-induced bronchoconstriction (EIB) in the pediatric population. Work performed and the resulting ventilation, however, might be substantially lower in stepping than running. This might decrease the diagnostic yield of step-based challenges. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study, 53 children with asthma with exercise-related symptoms (34 boys, age 6–18 y) underwent an incremental stepping test, a 6-min constant stepping test, and a treadmill running test on different days. RESULTS: Constant and incremental stepping tests presented with lower metabolic demands (V̇ O 2 1.42 ± 0.48 and 1.34 ± 0.55 L/min, respectively), ventilatory demands (V̇ O 2 45 ± 14 and 43 ± 16 L/min, respectively), and cardiovascular demands (160 ± 20 and 161 ± 19 beats/min, respectively) than the treadmill running test (1.65 ± 0.60 L/min, 54 ± 17 L/min, and 172 ± 7 beats/min, respectively) ( P < .05). Between-test agreement in diagnosing EIB was poor (kappa 0.217–0.361). Although EIB prevalence was higher after the treadmill running test (60%) compared to constant (53%) and incremental (47%) stepping tests, 7 subjects developed EIB only in stepping. Clinical and resting functional characteristics did not differ in discordant subjects (ie, EIB negative in a given test but positive in another) versus concordant subjects (ie, EIB negative or positive in both tests). EIB was not related to individual test ability in eliciting high to very-high ventilation (≥ 40% or ≥ 60% maximum voluntary ventilation, respectively). Moreover, a negative stepping test but a positive treadmill test (and vice versa) was not associated with greater ventilatory demands. CONCLUSIONS: Lower prevalence of EIB in stepping compared to treadmill running is not related to less ventilation demand in the former modality. Although stepping might be useful as a screening EIB test due its portability and low cost, a negative test should be confirmed with a running-based test in symptomatic children.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".