Optimization and Reliability of a Deep Water Running Test in Healthy Adults Older than 45 Years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to (1) compare the peak oxygen uptake across three protocols of different duration during an incremental deep water running test to exhaustion; (2) study the reproducibility of peak Vo2 during two repeated incremental deep water running tests; (3) compare peak deep water running test and treadmill cardiopulmonary responses in adults older than 45 yrs. DESIGN: First, 24 healthy subjects older than 45 yrs (60 yrs [6 yrs], body mass index: 28 kg/m [6 kg/m], 11 men/13 women) performed three incremental deep water running tests (< or =8 mins, 8-12 mins, and > or =12 mins) with measurement of peak Vo2 (optimization group). Nineteen subjects of the 24 original subjects (reproducibility group) then performed two repeated maximal deep water running tests. Finally, 21 of the 24 original subjects also performed an additional maximal treadmill test (comparison group). Peak Vo2 was compared with analyses of variance for repeated measurements for the optimization, reproducibility, and comparison groups. RESULTS: Peak Vo2 (ml/min) did not differ according to protocol duration (short: 1529 [674]; intermediate, 1456 [594]; and long, 1465 [674] ml/min, P = 0.53), was reproducible with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.90 (P < 0.0001), and was lower compared with treadmill (deep water running test: 1615 [586] vs. T: 2545 [511] ml/min, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: A 6- to 12-min protocol duration can be used to assess deep water running test peak Vo2, which is reproducible and lower compared with that obtained on the treadmill in healthy subjects older than 45 yrs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| 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".