Dysanapsis is not associated with exertional dyspnoea in healthy male and female never-smokers aged 40 years and older
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In healthy adults, airway-to-lung (i.e., dysanapsis) ratio is lower and dyspnoea during exercise at a given minute ventilation (V̇E) is higher in females than in males. We investigated the relationship between dysanapsis and sex on exertional dyspnoea in healthy adults. We hypothesized that females would have a smaller airway-to-lung ratio than males and that exertional dyspnoea would be associated with airway-to-lung ratio in males and females. We analyzed data from n = 100 healthy never-smokers aged ≥40 years enrolled in the Canadian Cohort Obstructive Lung Disease (CanCOLD) study who underwent pulmonary function testing, a chest computed tomography scan, and cardiopulmonary exercise testing. The luminal area of the trachea, right main bronchus, left main bronchus, right upper lobe, bronchus intermedius, left upper lobe, and left lower lobe were 22%–37% smaller (all p < 0.001) and the airway-to-lung ratio (i.e., average large conducting airway diameter relative to total lung capacity) was lower in females than in males (0.609 ± 0.070 vs. 0.674 ± 0.082; p < 0.001). During exercise, there was a significant effect of V̇E, sex, and their interaction on dyspnoea (all p < 0.05), indicating that dyspnoea increased as a function of V̇E to a greater extent in females than in males. However, after adjusting for age and total lung capacity, there were no significant associations between airway-to-lung ratio and measures of exertional dyspnoea, regardless of sex (all r < 0.34; all p > 0.05). Our findings suggest that sex differences in airway size do not contribute to sex differences in exertional dyspnoea.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".