MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

EFFECT OF HUMAN PREGANCY ON PHASE II VENTILATORY AND GAS EXCHANGE KINETICS DURING MODERATE EXERCISE

2002· article· en· W2019718756 on OpenAlexaffabout
Aaron P. Heenan, Larry A. Wolfe

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVehicle emissions and performance
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKineticsRespirationChemistryPhase (matter)MedicinePhysicsAnatomyOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To examine the hypothesis that O2 uptake (VO2) kinetics would be slowed in late pregnancy in response to a step increase in work rate. METHODS: The responses of eight healthy, physically active pregnant women (PG; gestational age 36.1 ± 0.4 wk) were compared to those of six nonpregnant women (CG) with similar characteristics. Subjects performed four repeats, on seperate days, of 8 min square-wave exercise bouts from loadless pedaling (4 min) to a work rate corresponding to 80% of their ventilatory threshold (Tvent). Time aligned and averaged responses for minute ventilation (VE), VO2 and CO2 output (VCO2) were fit using a monoexponential model from 20s post-work rate to either 3 min (ie. VO2) or 6 min exercise (ie. VCO2 and VE). CONCLUSION: The slower τVE in the PG was related to the greater gain in this group. It was postulated that the slowed τVO2 in late gestation was due to a reduced O2 availability resulting from a reduced hemoglobin concentration, a leftward shift in the O2-hemoglobin dissociation curve, a blunted sympathoadrenal response to exercise and shunting of blood to the fetoplacental unit. Supported by the U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command Contract #DAMD17–96–C–6112, the Ontario Thoracic Society, Ontario Thoracic Society (Block-term Grant Funding), and Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (N.S.E.R.C.).

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.858
Threshold uncertainty score0.719

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.249 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & ExerciseSame topicVehicle emissions and performanceFrench-language works237,207