Predictors of exercise-induced bronchoconstriction in subjects with mild asthma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Physical effort is capable of triggering airway obstruction in asthmatics, the so-called exercise-induced bronchoconstriction in asthma (EIBa). This study was performed in subjects with mild persistent asthma, aiming to find predictors for developing EIBa. Methods In 20 subjects with mild asthma, measurements of baseline functional respiratory parameters and airways responsiveness by a methacholine challenge were obtained on the first day. A maximal, symptom-limited incremental cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPExT) was performed the day after, with subsequent, repeated maneuvers of maximal full forced expiration to monitor the FEV 1 change at 1,3,5,7,10 and 15 min after the end of the exercise. Results 19 subjects completed the two-days protocol. No functional parameters both at rest and during effort were useful to predict EIBa after stopping exercise. In asthmatics with EIBa, mean Inspiratory Capacity (IC) did not increase with increasing ventilatory requirements during CPExT because 6 of them (50%) displayed dynamic pulmonary hyperinflation (DH), as documented by their progressive increase of end-expiratory lung volume. This subgroup, showing earlier post-exercise FEV 1 fall, had significantly lower forced mean expiratory flow between 25% and 75% of forced vital capacity (FEF 25-75% ) at rest (p < 0.05) and higher airways responsiveness, expressed as PD 20 FEV 1 (p < 0.05) as compared with other asthmatics with EIBa. Conclusions No functional respiratory parameters seem to predict EIBa in mild asthmatics. However, in those with EIBa, a subgroup developed DH during exercise, and this was associated with a baseline reduced forced expiratory flow rates at lower lung volumes and higher airway hyperresponsiveness, suggesting a prominent small airways impairment.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".