MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Perceived Exertion And Dyspnea While Cycling During A Hypoxic And Hyperoxic Placebo

2022· article· en· W4294820403 on OpenAlexaff
Shalaya Kipp, Jacob H. Hanna, A. William Sheel

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHigh Altitude and Hypoxia
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlaceboCardiorespiratory fitnessMedicineRating of perceived exertionExertionPhysical therapyPerceived exertionBreathingNoceboRoom air distributionVentilation (architecture)Work of breathingAnesthesiaHeart rateInternal medicineRespiratory systemBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rating of Perceived Exertion (RPE) is used to subjectively quantify and monitor the perception of physical activity, breathlessness or dyspnea, and leg discomfort (RPElegs) during exercise. However, it is unknown how perceptions of exertion can be influenced by expectation of difficulty. PURPOSE: We asked if the placebo and nocebo effects could alter dyspnea and RPEleg by telling subjects they were receiving different concentrations of oxygen during exercise. We hypothesized that subjects would rate their dyspnea and RPElegs higher when they believed they were breathing hypoxic gas and lower when they believed they were breathing hyperoxic gas relative to room air. METHODS: Thirty healthy, active subjects (19 M, 11 F) with normal pulmonary function participated. Prior to exercise, we read a script to ensure subjects understood hypoxic and hyperoxic gas might make breathing feel more difficult and easier, respectively, but intentionally made no mention about RPEleg. Then during 5-minute submaximal cycling trials (60% peak work rate), we deceived subjects by telling them they were breathing different hypoxic (17% and 15% O2) and hyperoxic (23% O2) gas concentrations, when in fact they breathed room air (21% O2). At the end of each trial, we asked subjects for their dyspnea and RPEleg. RESULTS: Cardiorespiratory variables were similar between the trials, however dyspnea and RPElegs changed in a dose-response manner depending on the O2 concentration participants believed they breathed. When subjects believed they were breathing 15% O2, they significantly increased their dyspnea +0.70 ± 0.2 Borg units (p = 0.03) compared to room air, whereas RPElegs did not significantly change +0.35 ± 0.1 Borg units (p = 0.70). When comparing the most severe hypoxic condition, 15% O2, to the 23% hyperoxic condition, subjects significantly increased their dyspnea +1.05 ± 0.4 Borg units (p = 0.003) but did not significantly change RPElegs + 0.55 ± 0.2 Borg units (p = 0.46). CONCLUSION: We found that dyspnea during exercise is susceptible to expectancy, without any accompanying physiological changes. Given that a single unit in dyspnea is considered a minimal clinically important difference, our findings show that the effect of expectation must be considered when interpreting sensations of breathlessness. Support: NSERC

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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicHigh Altitude and Hypoxia→French-language works237,207→