The impact of face masks on performance and physiological outcomes during exercise: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Face masks are promoted for preventing spread of viruses; however, wearing a mask during exercise might increase CO 2 rebreathing, decrease arterial oxygenation, and decrease exercise performance. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted on the impact of wearing a mask during exercise. Data sources included SPORTDiscus, PubMed, and Medline. Eligibility criteria included all study designs comparing surgical, N95, or cloth masks to a no mask condition during any type of exercise where exercise performance and/or physiological parameters were evaluated. Healthy and clinical participants were included. Mean differences (MD) or standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated and pooled effects assessed. Twenty-two studies involving 1573 participants (620 females, 953 males) were included. Surgical, or N95 masks did not impact exercise performance (SMD −0.05 [−0.16, 0.07] and −0.16 [−0.54, 0.22], respectively) but increased ratings of perceived exertion (SMD 0.33 [0.09, 0.58] and 0.61 [0.23, 0.99]) and dyspnea (SMD 0.6 [0.3, 0.9] for all masks). End-tidal CO 2 (MD 3.3 [1.0, 5.6] and 3.7 [3.0, 4.4] mm Hg), and heart rate (MD 2 [0,4] beats/min with N95 masks) slightly increased. Face masks can be worn during exercise with no influences on performance and minimal impacts on physiological variables. PROSPERO registration: CRD42020224988. Novelty: Face masks can be worn during exercise with no impacts on performance and minimal impacts on physiological variables.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it