Hyperoxia improves maximal exercise with the self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of hyperoxia on maximal exercise while breathing from a self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) were studied in 25 males. Each participant completed three graded exercise tests (GXT) for the assessment of maximal oxygen uptake (VO(2max)): two with 20.95 +/- 0.28% O(2) and the third (GXT(40)) while breathing hyperoxia (40.64 +/- 1.29% O(2)). No significant differences were found between the two normoxic tests, except for a 16W increase in maximal power output (PO(max)) in the second trial (GXT(21)). Compared to GXT(21), hyperoxia significantly increased VO(2max) and PO(max) by 10.0 +/- 3.8% and 10.2 +/- 7.1%, respectively. This was likely due to an increase in O(2) delivery as suggested by the significantly higher oxyhemoglobin saturation. The increase in VO (2max) with hyperoxia was similar to the increase in carbon dioxide production (9.3 +/- 6.5%). No other significant di.fferences were found at maximal exercise. However, at the intensity that elicited VO(2max) in GXT(21), pulmonary ventilation and SCBA mask pressure were significantly lower during GXT(40), suggesting a decrease in the work of breathing. These findings could have significant implications for occupations that involve heavy work with SCBA.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".