A Comparison of Modelling Techniques used to Characterise Oxygen Uptake Kinetics During the on‐Transient of Exercise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We compared estimates for the phase 2 time constant (tau) of oxygen uptake (VO2) during moderate- and heavy-intensity exercise, and the slow component of VO2 during heavy-intensity exercise using previously published exponential models. Estimates for tau and the slow component were different (P < 0.05) among models. For moderate-intensity exercise, a two-component exponential model, or a mono-exponential model fitted from 20 s to 3 min were best. For heavy-intensity exercise, a three-component model fitted throughout the entire 6 min bout of exercise, or a two-component model fitted from 20 s were best. When the time delays for the two- and three-component models were equal the best statistical fit was obtained; however, this model produced an inappropriately low DeltaVO2/DeltaWR (WR, work rate) for the projected phase 2 steady state, and the estimate of phase 2 tau was shortened compared with other models. The slow component was quantified as the difference between VO2 at end-exercise (6 min) and at 3 min (DeltaVO2 (6-3 min)); 259 ml x min(-1)), and also using the phase 3 amplitude terms (truncated to end-exercise) from exponential fits (409-833 ml x min(-1)). Onset of the slow component was identified by the phase 3 time delay parameter as being of delayed onset approximately 2 min (vs. arbitrary 3 min). Using this delay DeltaVO2 (6-2 min) was approximately 400 ml x min(-1). Use of valid consistent methods to estimate tau and the slow component in exercise are needed to advance physiological understanding.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".