Characterizing the Central Hemodynamic Response to Exercise in Relation to Subjective Assessments of Dyspnea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite normal resting hemodynamics, patients with dyspnea of unclear etiology (DUE) may present with abnormal exercise hemodynamics; however, the relationship between dyspnea severity and exercise hemodynamics remains unexplored. A retrospective analysis of 110 patients (60 (50-69) yrs, 65% female) referred for right heart catheterization with exercise for DUE or suspected pulmonary hypertension was conducted. Patients were categorized into five groups according to Borg dyspnea scores during exercise and degree of functional impairment via Medical Research Council Dyspnea Scale (MRC). Resting hemodynamics were unremarkable, even when partitioned by Borg dyspnea and MRC. Borg dyspnea scores did not differentiate exercise hemodynamics (all p>0.05), whereas greater MRC scores revealed elevated central pressure responses and systemic oxygen extraction (all p<0.05). Ultimately, hemodynamic parameters explained 11% of the variance in Borg dyspnea (r2=0.106, p=0.005). Borg dyspnea scores during cycling are unrelated to resting or exercise hemodynamics while MRC scores identify distinct hemodynamic responses during exercise.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".