MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Effect Of Exercise-specific Mask On Respiratory Function In Athletes With And Without Exercise Induced Bronchoconstriction

2022· article· en· W4294796395 on OpenAlexaff
Aidan K. Comeau, Nole Paradoski, Stefan Bozic, Rayna V. Sharma, Craig D. Steinback, Michael D. Kennedy

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBronchoconstrictionMedicineVital capacityAthletesAsthmaSpirometryVentilation (architecture)Physical therapyInternal medicineExercise-induced asthmaCardiologyPulmonary function testingLung functionLung

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Heavy ventilation is a known factor in exercise induced bronchoconstriction (EIB), leading to airway hyperresponsiveness in endurance athletes over time. How an exercise-specific mask designed for heavy ventilation affects EIB status and overall respiratory function following intense exercise is not well studied. Thus, we aimed to determine the effect of an exercise-specific facemask on airway function post-exercise in athletes with and without EIB at a normal indoor temperature. METHODS: Male (n=13) and female (n=7) athletes underwent two separate graded exercise tests to fatigue on a treadmill at 20 °C (20-40 % RH) while wearing an exercise-specific mask in one test (M) and unmasked (UM) in the other. Forced vital capacity (FVC), forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), peak expiratory flow (PEF), forced expiratory flow at 25-75% (FEF25-75), and forced expiratory flow at 50% (FEF50) were measured pre and at 3,6,10,15, 20, & 30 min post-exercise. Participants with a >10% reduction in FEV1 post-exercise (EIB+), those with an FEV1 reduction not meeting the threshold for EIB+ (EIB suspect), and participants without EIB (EIB-) were compared. RESULTS: Overall (n = 20) percentage of baseline post-exercise was improved (p>0.05) in the M condition compared to the UM condition for FEV1 (92.8 vs 92.1), FVC (91.4 vs 90.6), PEF (93.3 vs 87.2), FEF25-75 (93.5 vs 88.3) and FEF50 (93.3 vs 87.7). When EIB+ (n=3) and EIB- (n=12) subjects were compared, the magnitude of the difference in the M condition was smaller than that of the UM condition for all spirometry measures except for PEF. The magnitude of these differences between EIB+ and EIB- in the UM condition was reduced the most in the M condition for FEF50 (26.6% UM vs 11.0% M) and FEF25-75 (30.0% UM vs 20.4% M). The face mask reduced the absolute drop in FEV1 post-exercise in 67% of EIB+ subjects, 40% of EIB suspect subjects, and 42% of EIB- subjects. CONCLUSIONS: Wearing an exercise-specific mask attenuates reductions in respiratory function post-exercise in EIB+ participants. However, EIB suspect and EIB- athletes may also benefit from wearing a mask designed for heavy ventilation exercise. To fully understand the protective benefits of a mask in high ventilation athletes, provocation tests with post-exercise spirometry in both M and UM conditions should be performed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research→French-language works237,207→