MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Influences Of Extradiaphragmatic Muscle Recruitment On The Inspiratory Muscle Metaboreflex

2025· article· en· W4414241963 on OpenAlexaff
Megan L. Lance, Scott F. Thrall, Benjamin P. Thompson, Leah M. Mann, Jou‐Chung Chang, Katherine M. Taylor, Madison J. Gorsline, Richard J. A. Wilson, Trevor A. Day, Paolo B. Dominelli, Glen E. Foster

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience of respiration and sleep
Canadian institutionsMount Royal UniversityUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiaphragmatic breathingHeart rateBlood pressureDiaphragm (acoustics)Respiratory systemMuscle contractionElectromyography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The inspiratory muscle metaboreflex is activated during fatiguing diaphragmatic contractions when metabolites activate type III and IV afferents, increasing sympathetic nerve activity, mean arterial pressure (MAP), and heart rate (HR). The extent to which extradiaphragmatic inspiratory muscle effort augments the cardiovascular response to inspiratory loading is unknown. PURPOSE: To determine if the inspiratory muscle metaboreflex is augmented by increasing extradiaphragmatic inspiratory muscle effort during targeted diaphragmatic loading. METHODS: Sixteen healthy participants (8 female), age 32 ± 8 years (mean ± SD), completed two, 5-minute inspiratory threshold loading tasks in random order. In each task, participants targeted the same transdiaphragmatic pressure (PDI) of 65 cmH2O, breathing rate of 15 breaths/min, and duty cycle of 0.7. In one task, absolute mouth pressure (PM) was low, 30 cmH2O, while in another task, absolute mouth pressure was high, 50 cmH2O, requiring increased extradiaphragmatic inspiratory muscle effort. Metaboreflex sensitivity was determined as the change in MAP and HR from baseline during the last two minutes of loading. Data were compared across tasks and loads using a mixed effects linear model, reported as means and 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: The absolute cumulative diaphragmatic work (8484 [7064, 9903] vs. 8920 [7501, 10340] cmH2O s) was not different between tasks (P = 0.31) or sexes (P = 0.62). The peak inspiratory PDI was not different between tasks (64 [57,70] vs. 67 [60,73] cmH2O, P = 0.38) but peak inspiratory PM was greater when extradiaphragmatic inspiratory muscle effort was increased (+20 [19,23] cmH2O, P < 0.0001). The change in MAP (+12 [6,17] vs. +10 [5,15] mmHg, P = 0.465) and HR (+13 [8, 18] vs +16 [11, 21] beats/min, P = 0.095) did not differ between tasks when extradiaphragmatic inspiratory muscle effort was increased, and was not different between sexes (P > 0.56). CONCLUSION: Extradiaphragmatic inspiratory muscle effort did not augment the inspiratory muscle metaboreflex when diaphragmatic effort was constant, suggesting that type III or IV afferents originating from the diaphragm are key determinants of the inspiratory muscle metaboreflex. Supported by: NSERC, BC Lung Foundation, HBI RHISE and UCalgary Transdisciplinary Connector Grants.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicNeuroscience of respiration and sleep→French-language works237,207→