MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406205429 · doi:10.14814/phy2.70190

Sex differences in exercise‐induced arterial hypoxemia and pulmonary edema following high‐intensity exercise in highly trained endurance athletes

2025· article· en· W4406205429 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Alanna S. Hind, Reid Mitchell, Olivia N. Ferguson, Morgan Flynn, Satvir S. Dhillon, Karine Badra, Kathryn M. Milne, Danilo Iannetta, Michael S. Koehle, Jordan A. Guenette

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysiological Reports · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUltrasound in Clinical Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaSt. Paul's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia Hospital
FundersRES’EAU-WaterNETNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMedicineHypoxemiaPulmonary edemaEndurance trainingHeart rateCardiologyVO2 maxInternal medicinePulse oximetryHypoxia (environmental)Oxygen saturationAthletesTreadmillPhysical therapyAnesthesiaLungBlood pressureOxygen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study investigated sex differences in the development of pulmonary edema and exercise‐induced arterial hypoxemia (EIAH) in well‐trained endurance athletes during near‐maximal exercise in a real‐world setting. Twenty participants (10M vs. 10F; V̇O 2 peak: 69.3 (8.8) vs. 50.7 (4.1) ml∙kg −1 ∙min −1 ) underwent a maximal incremental treadmill test (visit 1) and a time trial on a steep trail (~2.5 km, ~800 m elevation gain) in North Vancouver (visit 2). Pulmonary edema was evaluated using handheld lung ultrasound ~10–15 min post‐exercise and oxygen saturation (SpO 2 ) was monitored using finger pulse oximetry. Males completed the time trial significantly faster than females (M: 31.5 (6.5) vs. F: 40.4 (7.5) min, p = 0.006), while females sustained a higher percentage of their visit 1 heart rate (M: 94 (1) vs. F: 96 (1) %max, p = 0.02). All participants developed EIAH, with no sex differences in end‐exercise SpO 2 (M: 89 (4) % vs. F: 90 (3) %, respectively, p = 0.35). There was no evidence of pulmonary edema, assessed through ultrasound b‐line scores, with no differences between sexes (M: 0.3 (1.0) vs. F: 0.5 (1.5), respectively, p = 0.60). Pulmonary edema is an unlikely contributor to EIAH in endurance athletes performing near‐maximal time trial exercise in a real‐world setting.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.793
Threshold uncertainty score0.816

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysiological ReportsSame topicUltrasound in Clinical ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207