The restrictive consequences of extreme obesity in men and women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Extremely-obese subjects frequently undergo pulmonary function tests (PFTs) nowadays. Obesity-induced decreases in key operating lung volumes (inspiratory and vital capacities) are particularly concerning as they may shorten the “room” for tidal volume expansion with negative physiological and sensory consequences. It remains unknown whether extreme obesity per se can cause restriction (total lung capacity Methods: We analyzed PFTs from 248 super-obese (SO, body mass index (BMI)=50-59.9 kg/m2) and 83 super-super obese (SSO, BMI≥60 kg/m2). Subjects were free of any disease interfering with lung volumes. Results: The prevalence of restriction was 26.9%, increasing to 38.6% in SSO. Restriction was more frequent in men than women in both BMI groups; moreover, it further increased in SSO men compared to SO (p<0.01). Regardless of BMI, the frequency of low inspiratory capacity and/or vital capacity was ~thrice as high in men. Multiple regression analysis revealed that SSO, male sex, low vital capacity and, particularly, low inspiratory capacity were independently associated with restriction (p<0.01). Restriction, in turn, was highly predictive of a low vital capacity (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]= 34.4 [13.9-84.5] and a low inspiratory capacity = 59.9 [20.5-175.0] (% model correct= 80.1 and 86.7, respectively; p<0.001). Conclusion: Obesity-related restriction leading to low operating lung volumes is highly prevalent in the extremely obese but otherwise healthy subject. These alterations inherent to massive obesity should be taken into consideration for an accurate interpretation of PFTs in this growing population.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".