Is The EVH Test Best For Diagnosing Exercise Induced Bronchoconstriction In Swimmers?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Competitive swimmers have high rates of exercise induced bronchoconstriction (EIB), which may be associated with repeated exposure to chlorinated pool water. The eucapnic voluntary hyperpnea (EVH) test is often used in a laboratory setting to provoke a reduction in lung function associated with EIB. However, swimmers experience EIB symptoms in warm, humid and chlorinated environments. The relationship between EVH testing environment and the development of EIB from swim exercise is unclear. PURPOSE: To compare the provoking effects of inspired air and high-intensity exercise in inducing EIB in swimmers to laboratory-based EVH methods. METHODS: 15 collegiate swimmers (n=5 male, n=10 female; 21±2 years) completed three days of testing in random order. On day one, subjects performed an EVH test in a laboratory (EVH-L). On a separate day, swimmers performed a modified EVH test, while breathing chlorinated pool air (EVH-Cl). On a third day subjects completed a swimming challenge, performing consecutive 200 and 400 m freestyle efforts at 85 % of their season’s best time (Average achieved 200 and 400 m time; 2:18.52±7.79 and 4:55.22±20.38, respectively) and age predicted heart rate maximum. Lung function was measured at baseline, as well as 3, 5, 10, 15, and 20 minutes following EVH testing and swim exercise. RESULTS: Greatest achieved fall index of forced expired volume in one second (FEV1) was significantly different between all three methods (p<0.05). EVH-L elicited a -9.7±6.4 % fall compared to the EVH-Cl test, -6.6±9.2 % (p>0.05) and swim effort, -3.0±7.5 % (p<0.05). A greater Pearson’s correlation in FEV1 fall index between EVH-L vs. EVH-Cl (r =0.78, p<0.05) was seen compared to EVH-L vs. Swimming (r =0.20, p>0.05) and EVH-Cl vs. Swimming (r =0.50, p>0.05). A greater reduction in forced expired flow between 25 and 75 % lung volume (FEF25-75) was induced by the EVH-L (-16.6±8.7 %) compared to the EVH-Cl (-8.2±14.9 %) (p>0.05) and swimming test (-1.3±15.6 %) (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: The EVH-L elicits a greater bronchoconstrictive response, compared to EVH-Cl and swimming. There is little relationship in reduction of lung function between the EVH-L test and swimming. Funding: Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".