MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3033212977 · doi:10.1113/jp279755

The effect of diaphragm fatigue on the multidimensional components of dyspnoea and diaphragm electromyography during exercise in healthy males

2020· article· en· W3033212977 on OpenAlexafffund
Kyle G. Boyle, Reid Mitchell, Andrew H. Ramsook, Michele R. Schaeffer, Michael S. Koehle, A. William Sheel, Jordan A. Guenette

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physiology · 2020
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
KeywordsDiaphragm (acoustics)Diaphragmatic breathingElectromyographyMedicineIntensity (physics)CyclingMuscle fatiguePhysical medicine and rehabilitationDiaphragm musclePhysical therapyCardiologyRespiratory systemInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Key points Diaphragm fatigue may increase the intensity (sensory dimension) and unpleasantness (affective dimension) of dyspnoea, which may partially explain why diaphragm fatigue negatively affects exercise performance. We hypothesized that diaphragm fatigue would negatively affect exercise performance via increases in both the intensity and unpleasantness of dyspnoea, and that the increase in dyspnoea would be mechanistically linked to an increase in diaphragmatic EMG (EMG di ), a surrogate measure of neural respiratory drive. Fatiguing the diaphragm prior to exercise reduced cycling performance and increased both the intensity and unpleasantness of dyspnoea. The change in submaximal dyspnoea unpleasantness was significantly correlated with the change in cycling performance. Pre‐fatigue of the diaphragm did not increase EMG di during exercise and is therefore unrelated to the increase in either the sensory or affective dimension of exertional dyspnoea. Abstract The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of diaphragm fatigue on the multidimensional components of dyspnoea and diaphragm electromyography (EMG di ) during cycling. Sixteen healthy males (age = 27 ± 5 yr, = 45.8 ± 9.8 ml kg −1 min −1 ) completed two high‐intensity, time‐to‐exhaustion cycling tests in randomized order: (i) inspiratory pressure threshold loading (PTL) prior to exercise to induce diaphragm fatigue (pre‐DF) and (ii) no PTL (control). Diaphragm fatigue after PTL was confirmed via cervical magnetic stimulation of the phrenic nerves. Dyspnoea intensity and unpleasantness were measured throughout exercise with the 0–10 category‐ratio Borg scale and following exercise using the Multidimensional Dyspnoea Profile (MDP). EMG di was continuously recorded via a multipair oesophageal electrode catheter. Time‐to‐exhaustion decreased with pre‐DF vs . control (9.0 ± 5.5 vs . 10.7 ± 7.5 min, P = 0.023). Pre‐DF increased dyspnoea intensity ratings by 0.6 ± 1.0 Borg 0–10 units at the highest equivalent submaximal exercise time (HESET) a participant could achieve in both conditions ( P = 0.020). Dyspnoea unpleasantness ratings increased with pre‐DF by 0.5 ± 1.0, 0.7 ± 1.2 and 0.9 ± 1.4 (all P < 0.05) Borg 0–10 units during the 2nd, 3rd and 4th minutes of exercise, respectively. There was a significant correlation between the change in breathing unpleasantness ratings at HESET and the change in time‐to‐exhaustion ( r = 0.66, P = 0.006). The immediate perception domain, a combination of peak unpleasantness and specific dyspnoea descriptor intensity ratings, was the only component of the MDP that was significantly increased with pre‐DF (4.3 ± 1.9 vs . 3.6 ± 1.8, P = 0.04). There were no significant differences in EMG di . In conclusion, diaphragm fatigue has negative effects on multiple domains of dyspnoea, which may partially explain why exercise performance decreases with it.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.269 · 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

Citations24
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of PhysiologySame topicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchFrench-language works237,207