MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086256414 · doi:10.1002/ppul.10131

Incidence of exercise‐induced arterial hypoxemia in prepubescent females

2002· article· en· W2086256414 on OpenAlexaff
Paul B. Laursen, Garry C.K. Tsang, Gareth J. Smith, Min V. van Velzen, B.B. Ignatova, Erica B. Sprules, Kelly S. Chu, K. D. Coutts, Donald C. McKenzie

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Pulmonology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHypoxemiaHeart rateVO2 maxCycle ergometerPopulationIncidence (geometry)CardiologyInternal medicinePhysicsBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to the recent discovery of exercise-induced arterial hypoxemia (EIAH) in healthy active women with normal levels of peak oxygen uptake (V'(O(2)peak), this study examined the incidence of EIAH in prepubescent females. Nineteen healthy, active, prepubescent females (X +/- SD: age = 11.1 +/- 1.6 years; height = 145.8 +/- 9.1 cm; weight = 35.6 +/- 7.0 kg) performed a progressive maximal exercise test on an electronically braked cycle ergometer starting at 0 W and increasing power by 15 W. min(-1). During this test, expired gases, heart rate (HR), and percent arterial oxyhemoglobin saturation (%SaO(2)) were measured. Results for physiological variables at maximal exercise were as follows: V'(O(2)peak) = 43.7 +/- 7.0 ml x kg(-1) x min(-1); HR(max) = 199 +/- 5 beats x min(-1); %SaO(2) = 96.6 +/- 1.2%. For nearly all subjects, the %SaO(2) at maximal exercise was above levels that would reduce V'(O(2)peak). Therefore, in comparison to previous reports of EIAH in adult women with similar V'(O(2)peak), EIAH does not appear to occur in the prepubescent female population.

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 score0.004

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations10
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric PulmonologySame topicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchFrench-language works237,207