MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2085261453 · doi:10.1139/h03-021

Prediction of Maximal Aerobic Power From the 20-m Multi-stage Shuttle Run Test

2003· article· en· W2085261453 on OpenAlexaff
Michael K. Stickland, Stewart R. Petersen, Marcel Bouffard

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Applied Physiology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVO2 maxMathematicsTreadmillStage (stratigraphy)Test (biology)Multi-stage fitness testAnimal scienceRegression analysisMedicineStatisticsPhysical therapyInternal medicineHeart ratePhysical fitnessBiologyBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to test the accuracy of the 20-m multi-stage shuttle run (SR) test to predict VO2max in young adults. VO2max was measured during a graded treadmill test in 60 men and 62 women (mean age 25.3 and 25.1 years, respectively). Each subject was familiarized with the SR procedure and the completed the SR test to predict VO2max on a separate day. The mean terminal SR stage was 9.5 for men and 7.8 for women. The regression equations of Léger et al. (1988) and Léger and Gadoury (1989) systematically underpredicted VO2max for both males and females (p < 0.05). New regression equations were developed from present data to predict VO2max for males: Y = 2.75X + 28.8 (r2 = 0.77, SEE = 4.07 ml.kg-1.min-1); and for females: Y = 2.85X + 25.1 (r2 = 0.66, SEE = 3.64 ml.kg-1.min-1), where X equals the last half-stage of the SR completed. We suggest that these gender-distinct equations provide more accurate predictions of VO2max from the SR.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
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)0.0010.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations110
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Applied PhysiologySame topicCardiovascular and exercise physiologyFrench-language works237,207