The impact of COVID-19 on pulmonary function and airway reactivity after recovery in college-aged adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine (1) whether pulmonary function is reduced, and airway reactivity is increased after recovery from COVID-19 in individuals who did not have severe illness, and (2) whether physical activity levels had any impact on pulmonary function or airway reactivity. An exploratory aim of the study was also to assess whether number of symptoms was associated with pulmonary function outcomes. The maximal flow volume loop was used to measure pulmonary function in individuals who had previously tested positive for COVID-19 (COV; n = 20, 23.0 ± 5.4 years) and those who had not (CON; n = 20, 23.7 ± 5.5 years) before and after a hypertonic saline challenge (HSC) designed to increase airway reactivity. Self-reported symptoms and physical activity levels (MET (min/week)) were collected to examine their correlation with pulmonary outcomes. There were no significant differences in any pulmonary function outcomes between the COV and CON groups before or after the HSC. There were also no associations between physical activity and pulmonary function outcomes. However, among participants who reported greater than four symptoms, there was a larger decline in forced expiratory volume in 1 s divided by forced vital capacity following HSC ( p = 0.035). Pulmonary function and airway reactivity are not impacted after recovery from COVID-19 in young individuals; however, it appears that the number of symptoms reported may be associated with increased airway reactivity even after recovery in young adults who were not hospitalized with the virus.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".