MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Impact of High Altitude on Dyspnea at Rest

2025· article· en· W4410270625 on OpenAlexaffabout
C. Bianquis, Marie‐Noëlle Fiamma, Trevor A. Day, Richard J. A. Wilson, G. Zubieta, Capucine Morélot‐Panzini, Thomas Similowski, Maxime Patout

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHigh Altitude and Hypoxia
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryMount Royal University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRest (music)Altitude (triangle)Altitude sicknessEffects of high altitude on humansIntensive care medicineCardiologyAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract RATIONALE: In lowlanders who ascend rapidly to high altitude, dyspnea is a symptom often found in cases of acute mountain sickness (AMS) and is constant in cases of acute pulmonary oedema (HAPE). However, the existence of dyspnea in healthy persons without other sign of AMS or HAPE at high altitude has not been studied. The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence, characteristics and physiological changes associated with dyspnea in healthy lowlanders after a rapid ascent to high altitude. METHODS: Twenty-six healthy participants (half female and male, aged 26 [24-35]: normal STAI-anxiety score) completed the multimensional dyspnea profile (MDP) at baseline (Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 1,048 meters above sea level) and after an ascent to 3650 meters (La Paz, Bolivia). Concurrent measures of breathing pattern variables and room air arterial blood gases were performed. RESULTS After 24 hours at high altitude, all participants reported dyspnea during room air resting breathing, with a MDP-A1 score (breathing discomfort) of 2 [2-4] in La Paz (LP) vs 0 [0-0] in Calgary (Cal) (p<0.0001), and an aggregated sensory descriptors score (SQ) of 8 [5-12.5] vs 0 [0-2] in Cal (p <0.0001).There was no statistically significant difference between Cal and LP regarding the effort, tightness, and concentration sensory qualifiers, but such a difference was present regarding air hunger (2 [0-3] in ELP vs 0 [0-0] in Cal, p=0.007) and regarding breathing a lot (3 [2-5] in LP vs 0 [0-0] in Cal, p=0.002). We observed statistically significant changes in PaO2 (87 [81-94] mmHg in Cal vs. 55 [50-58] mmHg in LP, p<0.0001) and PaCO2 (35 [32-38] mmHg in Cal vs. 31 [29-33] mmHg in LP, p<0,0001). There was no change in minute ventilation (9.3 [8-11] litre/minute in Cal vs. 9.5 [8-11] litre/minute in LP, p=0.21), respiratory rate (12 [10-15] breaths/minute in Cal vs. 13 [9-16]breath/minute in LP, (p=0.56). CONCLUSIONS Healthy humans who rapidly ascend to high altitude consistently experience dyspnea at rest, mainly of the “air hunger” and the “breathing a lot” types. This dyspnea could be explained by the absence of any change in minute ventilation, despite the existence of significant hypoxemia and hypocapnia. The pathophysiological impact of this initial finding remains to be assessed.

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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.317 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care MedicineSame topicHigh Altitude and HypoxiaFrench-language works237,207