Metabolic equivalent concept in apparently healthy men: a re-examination of the standard oxygen uptake value of 3.5 mL·kg<sup>–1</sup>·min<sup>–1</sup>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compared resting oxygen uptake (V̇O2) with the standard metabolic equivalent (MET) value of 3.5 mL·kg(-1)·min(-1), tested the accuracy of a previously published prediction model for resting V̇O2, and proposed a new prediction model for a more homogeneous population. One hundred and twenty-five apparently healthy men, aged 17-38 years, visited the laboratory for the assessment of resting V̇O2. The mean resting V̇O2 of 3.21 mL·kg(-1)·min(-1) (95% confidence interval (CI), 3.13 to 3.30) was significantly lower than the standard MET value of 3.5 mL·kg(-1)·min(-1) (mean difference, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.37; t = 6.7; p < 0.001). The prediction model proposed by a previous study, derived from a heterogeneous sample, exhibited no predictive ability in our more homogeneous sample. However, our population-specific regression model, which included body surface area and percent body fat as predictors, demonstrated relatively poor predictive ability, with a low R(2) (0.22) and high standard error of the estimate (0.42 mL·kg(-1)·min(-1)). Pearson's correlation coefficients for body surface area and resting V̇O2, and for percent body fat and resting V̇O2, were 0.20 (p = 0.022) and -0.36 (p < 0.001), respectively. In conclusion, the standard MET value of 3.5 mL·kg(-1)·min(-1) considerably overestimates mean resting V̇O2 in a relatively large group of apparently healthy men. Our population-specific prediction model for resting V̇O2 demonstrated relatively poor accuracy, although it was considerably more accurate than the previously published model. Further research needs to be conducted to establish accurate population-specific prediction models.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".