Sex-differences in the multidimensional evaluation of dyspnea in respiratory outpatients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Females experience greater dyspnea intensity compared to males. The role of sex in dyspnea quality and emotional responses in respiratory outpatients is unknown. The aim of this study was to examine sex-differences in dyspnea quality and affective distress as well as relationships between dyspnea, anxiety, and depression. Materials and methods: Respiratory outpatients rated chronic exertional dyspnea intensity and impact using the modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) dyspnea scale. Participants selected qualitative dyspnea descriptors from an established list of 15 descriptors and completed the Multidimensional Dyspnea Profile (MDP). Symptoms of anxiety and depression were assessed using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Results: = 78) had a variety of common respiratory diagnoses. Males and females experienced similar dyspnea impact (mMRC) and were matched for relative impairment in lung function. Females rated higher intensity of breathing muscle work, chest tightness, and mental effort. The affective response to dyspnea was greater in females, with significantly higher reports of anxiety, frustration, and fear related to dyspnea. HADS anxiety subscale scores were correlated with MDP dyspnea scores of breathing discomfort, immediate perception domain, and emotional response domain in males. In females, higher HADS anxiety scores were correlated with the emotional response domain only. Males with higher likelihood of anxiety experienced greater frustration, anger, and fear related to dyspnea; however, this was not the case for females. Conclusion: In respiratory outpatients, despite similar lung function impairment and mMRC scores, females experience greater breathing muscle work, chest tightness, and mental effort as well as significantly greater anxiety, frustration, and fear related to dyspnea.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".