Back Extensor Muscle Oxygenation and Blood Volume Comparisons during Two Endurance Exercise Modes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the current near-infrared spectroscopy devices do not measure absolute muscle saturation, normalization of hemodynamic measurements by occluding blood flow to muscles is considered acceptable. However, physiological reference for the paraspinal muscles is difficult with occlusion techniques. This study compared muscle oxygenation and blood volume responses in healthy men and women during: static back muscle endurance test (SBME) and stepwise incremental repetitive pushing-pulling exercise (PP). On two separate days, subjects completed SBME and PP until volitional exhaustion. Both oxygenation and blood volume values were obtained from the right erector spinae muscle. At volitional exhaustion, PP resulted in greater deoxygenation than during SBME (P<0.05). However, physiological change observed (calculated as the difference between the maximum and minimum values for oxygenation and blood volume) was not significantly different between exercise modes in both genders, suggesting either endurance exercise modes can be used interchangeably to establish physiological limits for the lumbar muscle.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".