Heart Rate Variability during Recovery from a Wingate Test in Adolescent Males
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of maturity status on the autonomic nervous system at rest and recovery after short-term, high-intensity exercise in adolescents. METHODS: A biological maturity age was estimated in 27 males by calculating the years from peak height velocity (PHV) using a multiple regression equation. Subjects were divided into two groups: pre-PHV (years from PHV < 0.49), N = 14, mean age = 12.29 +/- 0.91 yr; post-PHV (years from PHV > 0.5, N = 13, mean age = 15.12 +/-0.76 yr). HR variability was used to evaluate autonomic function. ECG tracings were collected during 5 min at rest and recovery after a Wingate test and were analyzed in the frequency domain (low-frequency (LF), high-frequency (HF), LF/HF, total power (TP)). Data are presented as natural logarithms (LN). RESULTS: Changes in HR from HR(peak) during exercise to HR measured at minute 4 after exercise ([DELTA]HR4) were significantly greater in the pre-PHV group (84.31 +/-17.58 bpm) compared with the post-PHV group (69.42 +/-17.63 bpm). There were no significant differences in resting HR variability between pre- and post-PHV groups (P > 0.05). Significant group x time interactions were found for LF(LN) (ms(2)) and TP(LN) (ms(2)) measured during recovery (P < 0.05). Post hoc tests showed that the pre-PHV group had significantly higher postexercise LF(LN) (5.02 +/- 0.97 vs 4.19 +/- 0.79) and TP(LN) (6.36 +/- 1.02 vs 5.62 +/- 0.65) compared with the post-PHV group. When postexercise LF(LN) (ms(2)) was normalized for TP(LN) (ms(2)), there were no significant differences between groups (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The pre-PHV group had higher total HR variability than the post-PHV group after a Wingate test, suggesting that maturity status significantly affects total HR variability during recovery after high-intensity 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".