MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

A TEST TO ESTABLISH MAXIMUM VO2 DESPITE NO PLATEAU IN THE VO2 DATA RESPONSE.

2003· article· en· W1987067826 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
John M. Kowalchuk, Harry B. Rossiter, B J Whipp

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsPlateau (mathematics)Limits of agreementStatisticsCycle ergometerIncremental exerciseVO2 maxAnimal scienceMedicineNuclear medicineInternal medicineMathematical analysisHeart rate

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE The VO2 response to ramp-incremental exercise does not consistently demonstrate plateau-like behaviour at the subject's limit of tolerance. The requirements for a VO2max are therefore not met despite apparent maximum effort. We therefore wished to determine whether a high constant-load test subsequent to the maximum ramp would provide the necessary criterion for a VO2max even when the data from the components of the test do not themselves manifest a plateau. METHODS Seven healthy male adults performed, as a single protocol, a ramp-incremental test (RI: 25–30 W/min) to the limit of tolerance on a cycle ergometer, followed by 5 min recovery at 20W and then square-wave test (SE) at 105% of the final work rate (WRmax) achieved during the ramp; the entire ramp-incremental square-wave exercise (RISE-105) test lasted ∼20 min. On a separate occasion, 5 of these subjects also performed a RISE-95 test where the RI was followed by SE at 95% WRmax. VO2 was measured breath-by-breath by turbine and mass spectrometer. VO2 data were filtered and time-averaged, and the average VO2 calculated during the final 5 s interval of each of the RI and SE tests was taken as the peak VO2. RESULTS A plateau in VO2 was not seen during any of the RI or SE tests in these subjects. The WRmax (mean (±SD)) reached on the two components of RISE-105 were 470 (41) W and 495 (42) W, respectively. Peak VO2's for this protocol were not different (p = 0.642): 4.28 (0.45) L/min (RI) and 4.31 (0.53) L/min (SE). In those subjects who also performed the RISE-95 protocol, the WRmax was sequentially 450 (45) W and 427 (43) W. No differences (p = 0.938) were found between the peak VO2's reached during either of the tests: 4.13 (0.45) L/min and 4.10 (0.49) L/min for RISE-105, and 4.09 (0.46) L/min and 4.11 (0.52) L/min for RISE-95. CONCLUSIONS The similarity between the peak VO2's established from the RISE components of our protocol provides the plateau criterion for VO2max to be established during a single test even when the data themselves do not plateau. Supported by NSERC, Canada and The Wellcome Trust, UK

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicCardiovascular and exercise physiology→French-language works237,207→