Optimal Mode for Maximal Aerobic Exercise Testing in Breast Cancer Survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine which mode of exercise is preferred by breast cancer survivors and to evaluate this response between graded exercise testing on a treadmill and on a cycle ergometer. METHODS: Twelve breast cancer survivors completed 2 maximal aerobic stress tests on separate days. The women completed a ramp protocol on an electronically braked cycle ergometer and an incremental step protocol on a treadmill to volitional fatigue. Test order was randomized. Expired gases were collected for the determination of peak aerobic capacity (Vo (2peak)). RESULTS: Exercise mode had a significant effect on the graded exercise response in breast cancer survivors, P = .003. Treadmill Vo (2peak) was significantly greater than bike Vo (2peak) (28.7 ± 4.7 vs 23.9 ± 4.7 mL/min/kg, respectively, P = .003) and VE(max) was equivalent between exercise modes (P = .731). Maximal heart rate was significantly higher by 11 bpm during the treadmill protocol (P = .004), and Ve/VCo (2) exhibited possible mode dependency (P = .018). CONCLUSION: This patient population felt more comfortable and produced significantly greater Vo2(peak) values using the treadmill protocol. These results discuss the potential implications concerning the design and interpretation of exercise interventions for breast cancer survivors.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".