MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Investigating the Impact of Forced Vital Capacity on Maximum Exercise Capacity and Dyspnea During Incremental Exercise

2025· article· en· W4410270834 on OpenAlexaff
Waleed Hassan, R. Agung Purwandono Saleh, Elena Kum, Paul M. O’Byrne, Martin Kolb, Imran Satia, K. J. Killian

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVital capacityIncremental exerciseAerobic capacityPhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationHeart rateInternal medicineLung functionDiffusing capacityLungBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Rationale: Patients with restrictive lung disease have a reduced quality of life regardless of the underlying diagnosis. It is unclear if therapies targeting improvement in forced vital capacity (FVC) leads to an improvement in exercise capacity and reduced breathlessness. We assume that the reduction in FVC alone is the sole contributor for reduction in exercise capacity leading to symptoms. This study investigated the impact of FVC on maximum power output (MPO) and effort required to breath alongside other independent variables. Methods: A cross-sectional, retrospective study of all patients >18 years of age with non-obstructive spirometry (FEV1/FVC <70%) and FVC<80% predicted who performed incremental cardio-pulmonary exercise testing (CPET) on cycle ergometry at the McMaster University Medical Centre between 1988-2012. MPO achieved ranged from 0 to 2200 kpm/min, with data analysis focused on MPO values between the 5th and 95th percentiles (200-1200 kpm/min) to exclude outliers. Patients rated their breathing effort at incremental workloads using a modified Borg scale (mBorg). A nonlinear multivariate regression model assessed the independent variables contributing to MPO and mBorg breathing effort scores. Results: 5658 patients had a non-obstructive defect (mean±SD age 56±15.3, BMI 28.65±6.3, FVC 2.47L±0.7, DLCO 80.8%±20.1). Quadriceps muscle strength, FVC and KCO were the top 3 variables influencing MPO (MPO kpm/min = 35[asterisk]Quad0.34[asterisk]FVC0.60[asterisk]Kco 0.33, r=0.81). A 10% increase in FVC was associated with a modest 6% increase in MPO. Dyspnea (mBorg) during exercise was influenced predominantly by power at each work load and the MPO. However, for each 100 ml increase in FVC, there was only a modest improvement in mBorg scores of 0.04. Conclusion: In patients with restrictive spirometry, muscle strength, efficiency of gas exchange, and FVC influence MPO, although the independent impact of FVC on MPO is limited. Similarly, small changes in FVC had minimal effects on perceived dyspnea. These findings underscore the importance of muscle strength and gas exchange properties in determining exercise capacity and dyspnea perception. Improving FVC alone may be insufficient to substantially alter exercise capacity and symptomatic outcomes.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine→Same topicCardiovascular and exercise physiology→French-language works237,207→