Reproducibility of a Laboratory Based 20-km Time Trial Evaluation in Competitive Cyclists Using the Velotron Pro Ergometer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reliability of a 20-km cycling time trial using the Velotron cycle ergometer in competitive cyclists. Twenty male cyclists (V.O (2max) = 68.5 +/- 3.6 ml . kg (-1) . min (-1); peak power (P (peak)) = 469 +/- 33 W) participated in this study. Each subject performed a V.O (2max) test and 3 separate 20-km time trials (TT1, TT2, and TT3). Data from trials were compared using a one-way ANOVA. Coefficients of variation (CV) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI) were calculated between trials. Values are mean +/- SD unless otherwise noted. Performance time T (tot) (30.03 +/- 1.24, 30.12 +/- 1.21, and 30.14 +/- 1.21 min) and mean absolute power (P (mean)) (326 +/- 35, 323 +/- 35, 322 +/- 34 Watts) were not significantly different across TT1 - TT3. P (mean) was highly related between TT1 - TT2 (r = 0.96; p < 0.01) and TT2 - TT3 (r = 0.97; p < 0.01). A low CV was also demonstrated between trials for P (mean) (TT1 - TT2 = 2.1 %, CI = 1.6 % to 3.1 %; TT2 - TT3 = 1.9 %, CI = 1.4 % to 2.8 %). P (peak) and P (mean) were both correlated to T (tot) in TT1 with P (mean) accounting for most of the variance in T (tot) (R (2) = 0.993). These data show that performance in a 20-km time trial using the Velotron ergometer is highly reproducible in competitive cyclists. Furthermore, the CV variance demonstrated between trials is comparable to that expected during actual performance in elite athletes.
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 | 0.013 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 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".