Modelling the Influence of Age, Body Size and Sex on Maximum Oxygen Uptake in Older Humans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to describe the influence of body size and sex on the decline in maximum oxygen uptake (O2,max) in older men and women. A stratified random sample of 152 men and 146 women, aged 55-86 years, was drawn from the study population. Influence of age on O2,max, independent of differences in body mass (BM) or fat-free mass (FFM), was investigated using the following allometric model: O2,max = BMb (or FFMb) exp(a + (c ' age) + (d ' sex)) [epsilon]. The model was linearised and parameters identified using standard multiple regression. The BM model explained 68.8 % of the variance in O2,max. The parameters (+/- s.e.e., standard error of the estimate) for lnBM (0.563 +/- 0.070), age (-0.0154 +/- 0.0012), sex (0.242 +/- 0.024) and the intercept (-1.09 +/- 0.32) were all significant (P < 0.001). The FFM model explained 69.3 % of the variance in O2,max, and the parameters (+/- s.e.e) lnFFM (0.772 +/- 0.090), age (-0.0159 +/- 0.0012) and the intercept (-1.57 +/- 0.36) were significant (P < 0.001), while sex (0.077 +/- 0.038) was significant at P = 0.0497. Regardless of the model used, the age-associated decline was similar, with a relative decline of 15 % per decade (0.984 exp(age)) in O2,max in older humans being estimated. The study has demonstrated that, for a randomly drawn sample, the age-related loss in O2,max is determined, in part, by the loss of fat-free body mass. When this factor is accounted for, the loss of O2,max across age is similar in older men and women.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".