Repeatability of Thoracoabdominal Wall Compartmental Contributions to Tidal Volume during Low‐, Moderate‐ and Heavy‐Intensity Exercise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The patterns of breathing and the thoracoabdominal wall compartmental contributions to tidal volume at different exercise intensities are typically assessed during a single laboratory visit, where individuals complete progressively higher intensity stages of exercise. The relative contributions of the thoracic and abdominal compartments have been reported to be invariant across exercise intensities; however, inter‐individual differences have been observed. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to assess the repeatability of the compartmental contributions to tidal volume during low‐, moderate‐, and heavy‐intensity exercise. It was hypothesized that the inter‐individual differences in the compartmental contributions would be repeatable day‐to‐day for each intensity. Seven healthy adults (2 female, age: 28±7 yr, peak oxygen uptake: 45±5 ml·min ‐1 ·kg ‐1 ) completed two step exercise tests on separate days, consisting of low‐, moderate‐, and heavy‐intensity stages for each individual based on their ramp exercise responses. Tidal volume and breathing rate were assessed using a bi‐directional turbine, and thoracic and abdominal contributions to tidal volume were measured by respiratory inductance plethysmography. Day‐to‐day repeatability was evaluated using the intra‐class correlation coefficient (ICC). With increasing exercise intensity, the tidal volume (p<0.001) and breathing rate (p<0.001) increased, but no differences in tidal volume (p=0.97; low: 1.14±0.21 L vs. 1.22±0.48 L, moderate: 2.02±0.49 L vs. 1.92±0.54 L, heavy: 2.51±0.60 L vs. 2.54±0.59 L) or breathing rate (p=0.94; low: 18±4 breaths·min ‐1 vs. 17±6 breaths·min ‐1 , moderate: 22±8 breaths·min ‐1 vs. 23±7 breaths·min ‐1 , heavy: 37±9 breaths·min ‐1 vs. 37±10 breaths·min ‐1 ) were observed between testing days. The relative contribution of the thoracic (low: 64±12% vs. 63±15%, moderate: 66±12% vs. 64±14%, heavy: 67±11% vs. 67±12%) and abdominal (low: 36±12% vs. 37±15%, moderate: 34±12% vs. 36±14%, heavy: 33±11% vs. 33±12%) compartments did not differ significantly between test days (p=0.59), or exercise intensities (p=0.38). However, there were inter‐individual differences in how the compartmental contribution to tidal volume changed with exercise intensity, as the relative contribution of the thoracic compared to abdominal compartment increased with higher intensity exercise for 3 subjects, decreased for 1 subject, and remained relatively constant for 3 subjects. These inter‐individual differences to increasing exercise intensity do not appear random, as the test‐retest repeatability of the compartmental contribution to tidal volume was good to excellent for low (ICC=0.87, p=0.003), moderate (ICC=0.89, p=0.002) and heavy (ICC=0.93, p=0.001) exercise. Future work should seek to identify factors contributing to the observed inter‐individual differences in compartmental contribution to tidal volume with increasing exercise intensity and whether these impart functional consequences.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".