MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Peak Oxygen Uptake And Muscle Oxygenation During Incremental Lifting In Healthy And Low-back Pain Subjects

2005· article· en· W2076273460 on OpenAlexaffabout
Yagesh Bhambhani, Robert Kell

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ReginaUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineErector spinae musclesHeart rateOxygenationAnesthesiaOxygen pulseCardiorespiratory fitnessIncremental exerciseVentilation (architecture)VO2 maxLumbarCardiologyPhysical therapyInternal medicineBlood pressureSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Repetitive lifting during occupational tasks has been associated with low back pain (LBP). Reductions in oxygen availability and aerobic capacity of the erector spinae muscles have been implicated in this phenomenon. This hypothesis, however, has not been tested in exercising humans. PURPOSE To compare the peak oxygen uptake (VO2peak) and muscle oxygenation responses between healthy (H) and LBP subjects during repetitive incremental lifting and lowering (RILL). METHODS Informed consent was obtained from 34 H and 34 LBP subjects who were age and gender matched. Subjects completed the prescribed RILL test: 2 min rest, 2.5 kg increase in lifting load every min to fatigue (10 lifts/min, lifting height 76 cm), 4 min of seated recovery. Cardiorespiratory responses were monitored using a wireless metabolic cart. Muscle oxygenation (Mox) and blood volume (Mbv) were recorded bilaterally from the erector spinae at the third lumbar vertebrae using near infrared spectroscopy. The following Mox and Mbv variables were calculated: delta, minimum value during RILL - resting value; range, maximum during recovery - minimum during RILL, and ½ recovery time (½ Rec, time taken for 50% recovery; an index of muscle aerobic capacity). Forward stepwise multiple regression analysis was used to predict the VO2peak from selected cardiorespiratory and NIRS variables. RESULTS There was no significant difference (p>.05) between H and LBP subjects for peak values of absolute VO2 (2.54 vs 2.29 L/min, heart rate (HR), ventilation rate, and oxygen pulse (O2 pulse). However, relative VO2peak was significantly lower (p < .05) in the LBP compared to H subjects (29.9 vs 34.4 ml/kg/ min). The LBP subjects demonstrated significantly lower Mox delta, Mox range and slower ½ Rec suggesting a reduction in muscle oxidative capacity. No significant differences were observed between groups for Mbv-delta and Mbv-range. In H subjects, peak values of HR and O2 pulse explained 59% and 16% of the common variance respectively in the relative VO2peak. In LBP subjects, peak HR, Mox-delta and peak O2 pulse explained 29%, 19% and 7% of the common variance respectively. CONCLUSIONS Localized Mox, independent of changes in Mbv, is an important predictor of the relative VO2peak in LBP but not H subjects. Support: Alberta Workers' Compensation Board and Millard Health

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation→French-language works237,207→