Familial aggregation of submaximal aerobic performance in the HERITAGE Family study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study examines the contribution of genetic factors to submaximal aerobic performance phenotypes measured before and after 20 wk of endurance training. METHODS: Submaximal oxygen consumption (VO(2)) at three power outputs, 50 W (VO(2)50W), 60% (VO(2)60%) and 80% (VO(2)80%) of VO(2max) and power outputs at 60% (PO60%) and 80% (PO80%) of VO(2max) were measured during cycle ergometer exercise tests in 483 subjects from 99 white families participating in the HERITAGE Family study. The baseline phenotypes were adjusted for the effects of age, sex, and body mass using stepwise multiple regression procedures. The response phenotypes, computed as the difference (Delta) between the posttraining and baseline measures, were adjusted for age, sex, and the baseline value. RESULTS: All submaximal exercise phenotypes measured at baseline and in response to training were characterized by a significant familial resemblance. Maximal heritabilities of the baseline phenotypes range from 48% to 74% with significant spouse, sibling, and parent-offspring correlations. The hypothesis of maternal inheritance where mother-offspring and sibling correlations were forced to be equal was found to fit the data for VO(2)60%, VO(2)80% and PO80%. For the response phenotypes, the maximal heritabilities tended to be lower (23--57%) with a significant maternal inheritance for Delta VO(2)60%, Delta PO60%, and Delta PO80%. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that the submaximal working capacities of sedentary subjects and their responses to endurance training are influenced by familial/genetic factors with a significant contribution of maternal inheritance.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".