The menstrual phase does not impact chemosensitivity during exercise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At rest, the menstrual cycle phase impacts ventilation and chemosensitivity. However, during exercise there is inconclusive evidence that the menstrual cycle phase affects ventilation or chemosensitivity. We sought to examine the influence of menstrual phase and hormonal birth control (BC) on chemosensitivity. We tested 12 males and 20 females (10 BC; 10 normally menstruating, NBC) on three occasions. Day 1 was a maximal exercise test and days 2 (follicular phase) and 3 (luteal phase) consisted of three bouts of chemosensitivity testing during cycle exercise at 30% of peak work rate. Females-BC and males completed day 3 approximately 2 weeks after day 2, with females-BC tested during the active phase of their birth control. There were no differences between the two experimental days for any groups for any (hypercapnia, hypoxia, and hyperoxia) chemosensitivity tests, p > 0.05. Females-BC had a significantly lower average response to transient hypercapnia than both females-NBC and males (38% and 42% lower, respectively, p < 0.05). Females-NBC had a significantly smaller change in ventilation to hyperoxia compared to males, -11.7 ± 5.9 versus -17.9 ± 5.4%, respectively (p < 0.05). We conclude that the day-to-day variability in chemosensitivity is not different between males, females-BC and NBC.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".