Perceived exertion and dyspnea while cycling during a hypoxic and hyperoxic placebo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rating of perceived exertion (RPE) is used to subjectively quantify the perception of physical activity, breathlessness or dyspnea, and leg discomfort (RPElegs) during exercise. However, it is unknown how dyspnea or RPElegs can be influenced by expectations. Thirty healthy, active participants (19 males, 11 females) completed five, 5-minute submaximal cycling trials at 60% peak work rate. We deceived participants by telling them they were inspiring different hypoxic and hyperoxic gases, when in fact they breathed room air. Cardiorespiratory variables were similar between the trials, however, dyspnea and RPElegs evaluated with a Borg scale changed in a dose–response manner. When participants believed they were breathing 15% O2, they significantly increased dyspnea +0.70 ± 0.2 units ( p = 0.03) compared to room air, whereas RPElegs was unchanged +0.35 ± 0.1 units ( p = 0.70). When participants believed they were breathing 15% O2, they significantly increased dyspnea +1.05 ± 0.4 units ( p = 0.003) compared to 23% hyperoxic condition, whereas RPElegs was unchanged +0.35 ± 0.1 units ( p = 0.70). We found that dyspnea during exercise is susceptible to expectancy, without any accompanying physiological changes. Given coaches and clinicians use perceived exertion to prescribe exercise intensity and evaluate treatments, our findings show that the effect of expectations must be considered when interpreting sensations of breathlessness.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".