Respiratory oscillometry testing in relation to exercise in healthy and asthmatic <scp>Thoroughbreds</scp>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Racehorses may experience exercise‐induced bronchodilation or bronchoconstriction, with potential differences between healthy and asthmatic individuals. Objectives To identify exercise‐related lung function variations by oscillometry in racehorses, compare lung function between healthy and mild equine asthma (MEA) horses, assess oscillometry's potential as a predictor of racing fitness. Study design Prospective case–control clinical study. Methods Fourteen Thoroughbred racehorses (5 healthy, 9 MEA) underwent a protocol including respiratory oscillometry at rest, exercise with fitness monitoring, oscillometry at 15 and 45 min post‐exercise, and bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALf) cytology. Oscillometry parameters (resistance [Rrs] and reactance [Xrs]) were compared within and between healthy and MEA groups at different timepoints. Associations between Rrs and Xrs at rest and 15 min post‐exercise and BALf cytology and fitness indices were evaluated. Results MEA horses showed higher Rrs at 15 min post‐exercise (0.6 ± 0.2 cmH 2 O/L/s) than healthy horses (0.3 ± 0.1 cmH 2 O/L/s) ( p < 0.01). In healthy horses, Rrs decreased at 15 min post‐exercise compared with resting values (0.5 ± 0.1 cmH 2 O/L/s) ( p = 0.04). In MEA horses, oscillometry parameters did not vary with time. Post‐exercise Xrs inversely correlated with total haemosiderin score ( p < 0.01, r 2 = 0.51). Resting Rrs inversely correlated with speed at 200 bpm ( p = 0.03, r 2 = −0.61), and Xrs with maximum heart rate (HR) during exercise ( p = 0.02, r 2 = −0.62). Post‐exercise Rrs inversely correlated with mean ( p = 0.04, r 2 = −0.60) and maximum speed ( p = 0.04, r 2 = −0.60), and HR variability ( p < 0.01, r 2 = −0.74). Main limitations Small sample size, oscillometry repeatability not assessed, potential interference of upper airway obstructions, external variables influencing fitness indices. Conclusions Oscillometry identified lung function differences between healthy and MEA horses at 15 min post‐exercise. Only healthy horses exhibited exercise‐induced bronchodilation. Oscillometry showed potential in predicting subclinical airway obstruction.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".