MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027836228 · doi:10.1080/17461391.2011.573580

Ventilatory response during an incremental exercise test: A mode of testing effect

2011· article· en· W2027836228 on OpenAlexaff
Geoffrey A. Power, Grant Handrigan, Fabien A. Basset

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Sport Science · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports Performance and Training
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTest (biology)Incremental exercisePhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapyVentilatory thresholdMedicinePsychologyInternal medicineVO2 maxHeart rateBiologyBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study compared ventilation patterns during incremental load tests to exhaustion. Ten endurance trained individuals and eight recreationally active trained individuals underwent a maximal oxygen uptake ( O 2max ) determination test on both a cycle (CE) and treadmill (TM) ergometer. Cardiorespiratory variables O 2 , CO 2 , RER, E , and R ), movement frequency (MF) and entrainment (ENT) were collected and calculated relative to fixed percentages of O 2max (isometabolic), ranging from 60 to 100%. Minute ventilation ( E ) was similar between groups on both ergometers. Concurrently, V T was significantly higher, while R was significantly lower on the CE compared to the TM in both groups ( P <0.05). At isometabolic intensities there were no difference in R or ENT between groups or mode of testing while the endurance trained group reached higher V T values on the CE. Although the endurance trained group reached higher cardiorespiratory values compared to the recreationally active trained group, their ventilatory patterns were similar between modes of testing. These results seem to be dependent on the exercise modality and not necessarily the type of training individuals regularly participate in.

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)0.004
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.337

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations12
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Sport ScienceSame topicSports Performance and TrainingFrench-language works237,207