Effect of Six-Minute Walk Test and Incremental Exercise on Inspiratory Capacity, Ventilatory Constraints, Breathlessness and Exercise Performance in Sedentary Male Smokers without Airway Obstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated physiological responses and exercise capacity in sedentary young smokers during sub-maximal and maximal test and its impact on dyspnea and exercise intolerance. Fifty sedentary male smokers and non-smokers (age: 24 ± 1 years., weight: 71 ± 9 kg, height: 177.3 ± 4.8 cm, body mass index: 22.6 ± 2.5 kg/m2) underwent two visits with pulmonary function tests, breathing pattern, and inspiratory capacity measurement at rest and during sub-maximal and maximal exercise. Smokers show reduced exercise capacity during six minutes walk test (6-MWT) with decreased walked distance (p < 0.001) and inspiratory capacity (p < 0.05). During cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET), smokers had higher minute ventilation VE for a given submaximal intensity (p < 0.05) and lower minute ventilation at maximal exercise (p < 0.001). End expiratory lung volume was significantly lower in sedentary smokers at rest (p < 0.05), at ventilatory threshold during exercise (p < 0.05), but not during peak exercise. End inspiratory lung volume was significantly lower in smokers at rest (p < 0.05) and ventilatory threshold (p < 0.05). Cigarette smoking alters lung function during submaximal and maximal exercise. This alteration is manifested by the development of dynamic hyperinflation contributing to exercise capacity limitation.
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 | 0.000 | 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".