Sex differences in exercise‐induced arterial hypoxemia and pulmonary edema following high‐intensity exercise in highly trained endurance athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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; V̇O2peak: 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 (SpO2) 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 SpO2 (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 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) | 0.002 | 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".