After-Effects of Thixotropic Maneuvers on Chest Wall and Compartmental Operational Volumes of Healthy Subjects Using Optoelectronic Plethysmography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The volumes assessed by optoelectronic plethysmography (OEP) and based on a three-compartmental model provide an accurate breath-by-breath index of expiratory and inspiratory (ribcage muscles and diaphragm) muscle length. Thus, after performing thixotropic maneuvers, OEP may also provide evidence regarding the history-dependent properties of these muscles. We studied the after-effects of different thixotropic conditionings on chest wall and compartmental operational volumes of twenty-eight healthy subjects (25.5±2.2 years, FVC%pred 94.8±5.5, and FEV1%pred 95.5±8.9) using OEP. Conditionings were composed of inspiratory or expiratory contractions performed from total lung capacity (TLC) or residual volume (RV). The study protocol was composed of three consecutive contractions of the same maneuver, with 60s of spontaneous breathing in between, and after-effects were studied in the first seven respiratory cycles of each contraction. Cumulative effects were also assessed by comparing the after-effects of each thixotropic maneuver. Inspiratory contractions performed from both TLC and RV acutely increased end-inspiratory chest wall volumes (all p<0.0001), mainly on both upper and lower ribcage compartments (i.e. non-diaphragmatic inspiratory muscles and diaphragm, respectively); while, expiratory contractions from RV decreased chest wall volumes (p<0.0001) by reducing the upper ribcage and abdominal volumes (all p<0.0001). The response of the thixotropic maneuvers did not present a cumulative effect. In healthy, the use of the three-compartmental model through OEP allows a detailed assessment of the diaphragm, inspiratory and expiratory muscle thixotrophy. Furthermore, specific conditioning maneuvers led to thixotropy of the inspiratory ribcage, diaphragm and expiratory muscles.
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".