Volitional hyperventilation during ramp exercise to exhaustion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine whether volitional hyperventilation at 20 L x min(-1) above normal exercise values affected exercise duration while performing ramp exercise to exhaustion. Nine healthy subjects performed a ramp exercise test to exhaustion. On a subsequent test they hyperventilated, with the aid of visual and audio feedback, at 20 L x min(-1) greater than their initial test. Ramp exercise time to exhaustion was substantially reduced from 771.6 +/- 85.2 s to 726.6 +/- 86.6 s (p < 0.002) with the additional hyperventilation. Subjects underwent 2 more ramp exercise tests and performed a 5 s maximum voluntary ventilation or a forced vital capacity test at work rates corresponding to rest, below lactate threshold (LT), above LT, immediately after exercise, and 3 min recovery. Generally, the flow rates were not affected by exercise below LT and were enhanced during above-LT exercise, exhaustion, and recovery. This indicated a change in pulmonary function that is dependent on exercise intensity. In spite of this increased ability to generate high flow rates, exercise performance was diminished when respiratory muscle work was increased volitionally by 20 L x min(-1), indicating a strong coupling between respiratory muscle work and fatigue during ramp exercise in normal subjects.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".