MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Dissociating The Effects Of Lung Size And Sex On The Work Of Breathing During Exercise

2023· article· en· W4387062324 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gracie O. Grift, Jasvir K. Dhaliwal, Jack R. Dunsford, Paolo B. Dominelli, Yannick Molgat‐Seon

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInhalation and Respiratory Drug Delivery
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of Winnipeg
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSpirometryConfoundingInternal medicineVentilation (architecture)LungPhysical therapyAsthma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: During exercise, females have a higher work of breathing (WB) for a given minute ventilation (V̇E) >50-60 l·min-1 than males, presumably due to sex-differences in airway luminal area. However, on average, males have larger lung volumes than females, and the confounding effect of lung size on sex-differences in the WB has yet to be investigated. Purpose: To determine the independent effects of lung size and sex on the WB during exercise in healthy males and females. METHODS: n = 16 healthy adults (n = 10 males, n = 6 females) completed pulmonary function testing and an incremental cycle exercise test to exhaustion. Throughout the incremental exercise test, the WB was calculated based on measures of esophageal pressure and bidirectional flow obtained using an esophageal balloon catheter and open-circuit spirometry, respectively. A subset of n = 3 males and n = 3 females were matched for age (±5 y) and forced vital capacity (FVC; ±0.5 l). RESULTS: Across all participants, the WB was similar between the sexes at a V̇E of 35 ± 2 l·min-1 (p = 0.138), but significantly higher in females than in males at a V̇E of 68 ± 4 l·min-1 (p < 0.001). There was no significant effect of FVC on the WB at a V̇E of 35 ± 2 l·min-1 (p = 0.114) or 68 ± 4 l·min-1 (p = 0.798), regardless of sex. In a subset of males and females matched for age and FVC, sex-differences in WB during exercise remained evident, whereby females had a higher WB than males for a given V̇E > 55 l·min-1 (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Sex-differences in the WB during exercise persist after accounting for sex-differences in lung size. Our preliminary findings provide additional support for the notion that the higher WB during exercise in females relative to males is due to sex-differences in airway luminal area rather than lung size. Supported By: Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (RGPIN-2020-06564) and Research Manitoba (5409) operating grants

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)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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)0.0040.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.255 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicInhalation and Respiratory Drug Delivery→French-language works237,207→