MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4416126981 · doi:10.1113/jp289764

Ventilatory stimulation with relative external dead space loading does not impact sex differences in exertional dyspnoea

2025· article· en· W4416126981 on OpenAlexafffund
Reid Mitchell, Olivia N. Ferguson, Alanna S. Hind, Morgan Flynn, Jem Arnold, Michele R. Schaeffer, Satvir S. Dhillon, Neil D. Eves, A. William Sheel, Jordan A. Guenette

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physiology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsInterior HealthSt. Paul's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDead spaceVentilation (architecture)Diaphragm (acoustics)Respiratory systemCardiorespiratory fitnessDiaphragmatic breathingCyclingStimulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Sex differences in respiratory responses to ventilatory stress may contribute to exercise tolerance and dyspnoea perception, with potential implications across health and respiratory disease. We hypothesized that dead space loading (DSL) normalized to 15% of forced vital capacity would increase exertional dyspnoea, exacerbate inherent sex‐based differences in the respiratory system's response to exercise, and elicit higher diaphragmatic and extra‐diaphragmatic respiratory muscle activity in females than in males. Forty healthy, non‐smokers (20 males, 20 females; 24 ± 5 years old; maximal O 2 uptake: 96 ± 20% predicted) completed familiarization followed by two maximal incremental cycling tests on separate days with and without DSL in a randomized, single‐blinded and counter‐balanced order. Diaphragm activity was recorded using a multi‐pair electrode oesophageal catheter, while extra‐diaphragmatic inspiratory muscle activity was recorded with bipolar surface electrodes. DSL was 797 ± 114 mL in males and 585 ± 71 mL in females ( P < 0.001). Dyspnoea ratings increased similarly in both sexes with DSL, with no sex differences during or after exercise. Minute ventilation was increased with DSL throughout exercise [peak‐males: Δ16 L·min −1 ·%peak work −1 , CI: (12,19), P < 0.001; females: Δ11 L·min −1 ·%peak work −1 , CI: (8,15), P < 0.001], as well as indices of mechanical ventilatory constraints (e.g. tidal volume, power of breathing) at peak exercise in both sexes, where males had a greater increase with DSL for most variables than females. Diaphragm and extra‐diaphragmatic activity were increased with DSL in both sexes, with a greater increase in extra‐diaphragmatic activity in females near maximal exercise. These findings suggest that while sex differences in respiratory function and respiratory muscle activation exist, they do not necessarily translate to sex differences in dyspnoea perception during maximal incremental cycling. image Key points Sex differences in respiratory anatomy and function are known to influence dyspnoea perception during exercise; however, the effects of higher ventilatory demand and mechanical ventilatory constraints on these differences remain poorly understood. Using a simple‐randomization, single‐blinded and counter‐balanced study design, we stimulated minute ventilation () and increased mechanical ventilatory constraints during maximal incremental cycling using dead space loading (DSL) customized to 15% of each individual's forced vital capacity. Dyspnoea was assessed using a multidimensional approach during and immediately after exercise. Despite increases in the sensations of breathing work/effort, unsatisfied inspiration and unsatisfied expiration with DSL in both sexes, there were no sex differences in dyspnoea perception during exercise with DSL. DSL increased and indicators of mechanical ventilatory constraints in both sexes compared to control exercise. Both sexes experienced an increase in diaphragmatic and extra‐diaphragmatic muscle activity, where females had a greater increase in extra‐diaphragmatic activity with DSL than males.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

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)0.0040.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.301 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Physiology→Same topicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research→French-language works237,207→