Exercise‐induced arterial hypoxemia is not different during cycling and running in triathletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the effect of running and cycling on exercise-induced arterial hypoxemia (EIAH) in individuals well trained in each modality. Thirteen male triathletes (X+/-SD: age=36+/-5 years, mass=69+/-8 kg, body fat=12+/-1%) performed progressive exercise to exhaustion during cycle ergometry and treadmill running. Gas exchange was determined, while oxyhemoglobin saturation (SaO(2)) was measured with an ear oximeter. At maximal exercise, the respiratory exchange ratio (1.15+/-0.06 vs. 1.10+/-0.05) and the ventilatory equivalent for oxygen uptake (37.6+/-3.8 vs. 34.2+/-2.7) were greater during cycling vs. running (P<0.05). However, there were no differences at maximal exercise in oxygen uptake (64.4+/-3.2 vs. 67.0+/-4.6 mL kg(-1) min(-1)), SaO(2) (93.4+/-2.8% vs. 92.6+/-2.2%), or the ventilatory equivalent for carbon dioxide (V(E)/VCO(2); 33.1+/-3.1 vs. 31.0+/-3.1), during cycling vs. running, respectively. During submaximal exercise, the V(E)/VCO(2) was less for cycling (26.0+/-1.0) compared with running (29.1+/-0.4; P<0.05), but this had no apparent effect on the SaO(2) response. In conclusion, EIAH was not significantly different during cycling and running in athletes who were well trained in both exercise modalities.
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) | 0.000 | 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".