Clinical Usefulness of Response Profiles to Rapidly Incremental Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The advent of microprocessed "metabolic carts" and rapidly incremental protocols greatly expanded the clinical applications of cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET). The response normalcy to CPET is more commonly appreciated at discrete time points, for example, at the estimated lactate threshold and at peak exercise. Analysis of the response profiles of cardiopulmonary responses at submaximal exercise and recovery, however, might show abnormal physiologic functioning which would not be otherwise unraveled. Although this approach has long been advocated as a key element of the investigational strategy, it remains largely neglected in practice. The purpose of this paper, therefore, is to highlight the usefulness of selected submaximal metabolic, ventilatory, and cardiovascular variables in different clinical scenarios and patient populations. Special care is taken to physiologically justify their use to answer pertinent clinical questions and to the technical aspects that should be observed to improve responses' reproducibility and reliability. The most recent evidence in favor of (and against) these variables for diagnosis, impairment evaluation, and prognosis in systemic diseases is also critically discussed.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it