Evaluation of true maximal oxygen uptake based on a novel set of standardized criteria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, criteria are used to identify whether a subject has elicited maximal oxygen uptake. We evaluated the validity of traditional maximal oxygen uptake criteria and propose a novel set of criteria. Twenty athletes completed a maximal oxygen uptake test, consisting of an incremental phase and a subsequent supramaximal phase to exhaustion (verification phase). Traditional and novel maximal oxygen uptake criteria were evaluated. Novel criteria were: oxygen uptake plateau defined as the difference between modelled and actual maximal oxygen uptake >50% of the regression slope of the individual oxygen uptake–workrate relationship; as in the first criterion, but for maximal verification oxygen uptake; and a difference of ≤4 beats·min–1 between maximal heart rate values in the 2 phases. Satisfying the traditional oxygen uptake plateau criterion was largely an artefact of the between-subject variation in the oxygen uptake–workrate relationship. Secondary criteria, supposedly an indicator of maximal effort, were often satisfied long before volitional exhaustion, even at intensities as low as 61% maximal oxygen uptake. No significant mean differences were observed between the incremental and verification phases for oxygen uptake (t = 0.4; p = 0.7) or heart rate (t = 0.8; p = 0.5). The novel oxygen uptake plateau criterion, maximal oxygen uptake verification criterion, and maximal heart rate verification criterion were satisfied by 17, 18, and 18 subjects, respectively. The small individual absolute differences in oxygen uptake between incremental and verification phases observed in most subjects provided additional confidence that maximal oxygen uptake was elicited. Current maximal oxygen uptake criteria were not valid and novel criteria should be further explored.
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 | 0.005 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".