Physiological Responses of Ultraendurance Athletes and Nonathletes During an Attempt to Summit Denali
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare altitude responses of 2 ultraendurance athletes and 2 nonathletes during a 2-week expedition on Denali (Mount McKinley). METHODS: The severity of acute mountain sickness (AMS) symptoms (Lake Louise AMS guidelines) and pulmonary function parameters (forced vital capacity, forced expiratory volume in 1 second, peak expiratory flow) as well as resting heart rate and arterial oxygen saturation measurements were taken during the climb. Baseline measurements were made at 375 m, and field tests were performed at altitudes of 2200 m, 2400 m, 3000 m, 3400 m, 4100 m, 4300 m, and 10 m. RESULTS: Nonathletes reported moderate AMS symptoms at altitudes up to and including 3000 m, whereas ultraendurance athletes reported moderate AMS symptoms at altitudes above 3000 m. Considerable daily variation existed in pulmonary function measures within and between groups; however, the largest shift from baseline and between groups occurred at 3000 m where ultraendurance athletes had increased and nonathletes had decreased peak expiratory flow and forced vital capacity. Resting heart rate increased and arterial oxygen saturation decreased with altitude. CONCLUSIONS: Highly aerobically fit individuals may be more susceptible to delayed and more prolonged onset of AMS than are moderately fit individuals. Pulmonary function, although highly variable, also may be dissimilar between these 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".