MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393252402 · doi:10.1249/mss.0000000000003437

Physiological Factors Associated with Unsatisfied Inspiration at Peak Exercise in Healthy Adults

2024· article· en· W4393252402 on OpenAlexaff
Olivia N. Ferguson, Reid Mitchell, Michele R. Schaeffer, Andrew H. Ramsook, Kyle G. Boyle, Satvir S. Dhillon, Julia Zhang, Alanna S. Hind, Dennis Jensen, Jordan A. Guenette

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's HospitalMcGill University Health CentreMcGill UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicinePhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Contrary to common belief, a growing body of evidence suggests that unsatisfied inspiration (UI), an inherently uncomfortable quality of dyspnea, is experienced by ostensibly healthy adults during high-intensity exercise. Based on our understanding of the mechanisms of UI among people with chronic respiratory conditions, this analysis tested the hypothesis that the experience of UI at peak exercise in young, healthy adults reflects the combination of high ventilatory demand and critical inspiratory constraints. METHODS: In a retrospective analysis design, data included 321 healthy individuals (129 females) aged 25 ± 5 yr. Data were collected during one visit to the laboratory, which included anthropometrics, spirometry, and an incremental cardiopulmonary cycling test to exhaustion. Metabolic and cardiorespiratory variables were measured at peak exercise, and qualitative descriptors of dyspnea at peak exercise were assessed using a list of 15 descriptor phrases. RESULTS: Thirty-four percent of participants ( n = 109) reported sensations of UI at peak exercise. Compared with the non-UI group, the UI group achieved a significantly higher peak work rate (243 ± 77 vs 235 ± 69 W, P = 0.016, d = 0.10), rate of O 2 consumption (3.32 ± 1.02 vs 3.27 ± 0.96 L·min -1 , P = 0.018, d = 0.05), minute ventilation (120 ± 38 vs 116 ± 35 L·min -1 , P = 0.047, d = 0.11), and breathing frequency (50 ± 9 vs 47 ± 9 breaths per minute, P = 0.014, d = 0.33), while having a lower exercise-induced change (peak-baseline) in inspiratory capacity (0.07 ± 0.41 vs 0.20 ± 0.49 L, P = 0.023, d = 0.29). The inspiratory reserve volume to minute ventilation ratio at peak exercise was also lower in the UI versus non-UI group. Dyspnea intensity and unpleasantness ratings were significantly higher in the UI versus non-UI group at peak exercise (both P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Healthy individuals reporting UI at peak exercise have relatively greater inspiratory constraints compared with those who do not select UI.

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)0.000
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & ExerciseSame topicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchFrench-language works237,207