ArticleScientific reports2025
An objective method to detect sighs during cardio-pulmonary exercise testing.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Excessive sighs have been described as one type of dysfunctional breathing (DB). Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) is one of the diagnostic options for DB and allows for a subjective evaluation of sighs. However, no validated method exists to automatically quantify sighs during CPET. We aimed to develop such a method. We used two Swiss cohorts of patients with persistent dyspnea after SARS-CoV-2 infection using CPET. In the derivation cohort (n = 48), we tested different filters to find the one that was the least influenced by outliers of tidal volume (VT) using a subjective approach. The selected filter (rolling median of 15 values) was applied in the validation cohort (n = 77) to detect spikes of VT above 2 times the value of the associated centered filtered value. Every automatically detected spike of VT from the cohort was analyzed by two experienced raters using continuous volume and flow-over-time graphs reconstructed from high resolution data acquisition. In the validation cohort, 203 automatically detected spikes of VT were visually analyzed by two raters. Of the 203 detected spikes, 199 corresponded to a sigh. The Cohen's Kappa (95% CI) between the raters was 0.89 (0.67-1). In conclusion, we developed a simple automated method for the objective quantification of sighs during CPET. It could be used to establish normative values of sighs during CPET and explore the associations between sighs and symptoms of patients with DB.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.