Co‐administration of Neptazane and aminophylline to men abrogates the decline in endurance exercise performance in simulated high‐altitude (708.6)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During a sojourn to high altitude, endurance exercise performance is diminished; pharmacotherapy may abrogate this performance deficit. We hypothesized oral administration of Neptazane (N), Aminophylline (A), and/or N combined with A would attenuate hypoxia‐mediated decrements in endurance exercise performance in humans. Healthy males (26±1 years, body mass index: 24.9±0.4 kg/m 2 ; mean±SE) were randomly assigned to one of four treatments: placebo ( n =9), N (250 mg; n =10), A (400 mg; n =9), or N (250 mg) combined with A (400 mg; n =8). On two separate occasions, the first in normoxia (21% O 2 ) and the second in hypoxia (15% O 2 ), participants sat for 4.5 hours before completing a standardized exercise bout (30 min, stationary cycling, 100 W) followed by a time trial (time to cycle 12.5 km). The magnitude of time trial performance decrement in hypoxia did not differ ( P >0.09) between placebo (+3.0±1.0 min), N (+1.4±0.5 min) and A (+1.8±0.4 min), however the performance decrement with N combined with A was less than placebo (+0.6±0.5 min; P =0.01). This improvement may have been partially mediated by increased SpO 2 in hypoxia with N combined with A, compared with placebo (73±1 vs . 79±2%; P <0.02). In adult men, N combined with A abrogated the hypoxia‐mediated decrement in endurance exercise performance. Co‐administration of N and A may promote endurance exercise performance during a sojourn to high altitude. Grant Funding Source : Supported by DARPA: N66001‐10‐C‐2134
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".