Intersample fluctuations in phosphocreatine concentration determined by <sup>31</sup>P‐magnetic resonance spectroscopy and parameter estimation of metabolic responses to exercise in humans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ATP turnover rate during constant-load exercise is often estimated from the initial rate of change of phosphocreatine concentration ([PCr]) using 31P-magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS). However, the phase and amplitude characteristics of the sample-to-sample fluctuations can markedly influence this estimation (as well as that for the time constant (tau) of the [PCr] change) and confound its physiological interpretation especially for small amplitude responses. This influence was investigated in six healthy males who performed repeated constant-load quadriceps exercise of a moderate intensity in a whole-body MRS system. A transmit- receive surface coil was placed under the right quadriceps, allowing determination of intramuscular [PCr]; pulmonary oxygen uptake (VO2) was simultaneously determined, breath-by-breath, using a mass spectrometer and a turbine volume measuring module. The probability density functions (PDF) of [PCr] and VO2 fluctuations were determined for each test during the steady states of rest and exercise and the PDF was then fitted to a Gaussian function. The standard deviation of the [PCr] and VO2 fluctuations at rest and during exercise (sr and sw, respectively) and the peak centres of the distributions (xc(r) and xc(w)) were determined, as were the skewness (gamma1) and kurtosis (gamma2) coefficients. There was no difference between sr and sw for [PCr] relative to the resting control baseline (s(r) = 1.554 %delta (s.d. = 0.44), s(w) = 1.514 %delta (s.d. = 0.35)) or the PDF peak centres (xc(r) = -0.013 %delta (s.d. = 0.09), xc(w) -0.197 %delta (s.d. = 0.18)). The standard deviation and peak centre of the 'noise' in VO2 also did not vary between rest and exercise (sr = 0.0427 l min(-1) (s.d. = 0.0104), s(w) = 0.0640 l min(-1) (s.d. = 0.0292); xc(r) = -0.0051 l min(-1) (s.d. = 0.0069), xc(w) 0.0022 l min(-1) (s.d. = 0.0034)). Our results demonstrate that the intersample 'noise' associated with [PCr] determination by 31P-MRS may be characterised as a stochastic Gaussian process that is uncorrelated with work rate, as previously described for VO2. This 'noise' can significantly affect the estimation of tau[PCr] and especially the initial rate of change of [PCr], i.e. the fluctuations can lead to variations in estimation of the initial rate of change of [PCr] of more than twofold, if the inherent 'noise' is not accounted for. This 'error' may be significantly reduced in such cases if the initial rate of change is estimated from the time constant and amplitude of the response.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".