Respiratory muscle strengths and its association with body composition and functional exercise capacity in non-obese young adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background.The assessment of cardiopulmonary problems, exercise capacity, and inspiratory and expiratory muscle strength all depend on body composition, which is a crucial factor in determining human health.Objectives.The present study aimed to examine the effect of body composition and functional exercise capacity on respiratory muscle strength in young healthy adults. Material and methods.In the prospective study, sixty individuals aged between 18-25 years of age who were non-obese were evaluated in terms of body composition by body mass index, respiratory muscle strength by mouth pressure threshold and functional exercise capacities by six minute walking test and sit to stand test.Also, sociodemographic characteristics such as age, gender, education level, height and weight of the participants were recorded. Results.The relationship between body density (BD) parameters and inspiratory muscle strength was found to be moderate (r = 0.394, p < 0.05), while the relationship between expiratory muscle strength was found to be minimal (r = 0.282, p < 0.05).When other measurements and respiratory muscle strength were compared, it was found that the parameters are unrelated to one another (p > 0.05). Conclusions.Present study showed a significant correlation between body density and inspiratory and expiratory respiratory muscle strength.However, no correlation was found between body composition and functional exercise capacity and respiratory muscle strength.Body density increment will affect respiratory muscle strength negatively.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".