Maximal and submaximal aerobic fitness in postmenopausal women: influence of hormone-replacement therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine whether maximal and submaximal aerobic fitness parameters (peak oxygen consumption and ventilatory threshold, respectively) are affected by hormone-replacement therapy (HRT) in moderately active postmenopausal women. Forty healthy, active, postmenopausal women (21 taking HRT, mean age 62 +/- 5 years; 19 not taking HRT, mean age 62 +/- 7 years) met the peak oxygen consumption criteria during a cycle ergometer test (15 W ramp) and achieved volitional fatigue. Breath-by-breath measurement was used to determine peak oxygen consumption and to estimate ventilatory threshold. There were no differences in characteristics (age, body mass, height, body mass index, leisure-time physical activity) between the non-HRT and HRT groups, nor were there any differences in responses to maximal exercise, with an observed peak oxygen consumption (mL.kg-1.min-1) of 22.9 +/- 3.8 in the non-HRT group and 22.0 +/- 4.7 in the HRT group. There was also no difference in submaximal aerobic capacity, with ventilatory threshold values (mL.kg-1.min-1) of 16.7 +/- 3.4 in the non-HRT group and 15.6 +/- 3.2 in the HRT group. In a sample of healthy moderately active postmenopausal women, there was no difference in maximal or submaximal aerobic fitness parameters between the HRT and non-HRT groups.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".