MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4315778414 · doi:10.1080/00140139.2023.2168766

Impact of fire protective equipment and the self-contained breathing apparatus on peak exercise in males and females

2023· article· en· W4315778414 on OpenAlexaff
Randy W. Dreger

Bibliographic record

VenueErgonomics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Health and Performance
Canadian institutionsNorthern Alberta Institute of Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVentilation (architecture)Rating of perceived exertionRespiratory rateVO2 maxMedicineBreathingRespiratory minute volumeAnalysis of varianceHeart ratePhysical therapyRespirationAnimal scienceInternal medicineRespiratory systemAnesthesiaBlood pressureBiologyAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With an increase in the number of females entering the fire service it is important to understand the potential impact of personal protective equipment (PPE) on females. This study compared selected physiological responses during two graded exercise tests (GXT) performed in a counterbalanced design: GXTPT – wearing athletic clothing while breathing through a low-resistance valve; and GXTPPE – wearing PPE and breathing from a self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA). Sixteen males and 15 females acted as participants. V˙O2peak was significantly lower, by approximately 15%, during the GXTPPE compared to the GXTPT condition for both the males and females. Physiologically, the decreased oxygen consumption was strongly related to an attenuated ventilation (r = 0.75 and 0.71) and oxygen pulse (r = 0.94 and 0.93) for the males and females, respectively. The results of this investigation demonstrate that the SCBA and PPE impacts males and females to a similar relative extent and manner. Practitioner summary: Little information exists regarding the impact of the SCBA and PPE on physiological parameters for females. This investigation determined that females have reduced exercise capacities to the same extent as males, which should be considered when evaluating the aerobic demands of fire suppression work and the fitness levels of firefighters.Abbreviations: GXT: graded exercise test; SCBA: self-contained breathing apparatus; personal protective equipment; MMC: metabolic measurement cart; ANOVA: analysis of variance; RPE: rating of percieved exertion; PRD: perceptions of respiratory distress; PTD: percieved thermal distress; V˙O2: rate of oxygen consumption; V˙O2peak: rate of oxygen consumption at peak exercise; V˙Epeak: minute ventilation at peak exercise; V˙E/V˙CO2: ventilatory equivalent for carbon dioxide; FVC: forced vital capacity; FEV1: forced expiratory volume in one second; FEF25-75%: forced expiratory flow; PEF: peak expiratory flow rate; MVV: maximum voluntary ventilation.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.265

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.347 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueErgonomicsSame topicOccupational Health and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207