MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2089252677 · doi:10.1139/h04-035

Cardiopulmonary Physiology and Responses of Ultramarathon Athletes to Prolonged Exercise

2004· article· en· W2089252677 on OpenAlexaffabout
Andrew P. Blaber, M.L. Walsh, James B. Carter, Erik Seedhouse, Valerie E. Walker

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Applied Physiology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Effects of Exercise
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSupine positionHeart rateCardiologyCardiorespiratory fitnessPhysical therapyPulmonary function testingAthletesInternal medicineBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to determine the changes of pulmonary function and autonomic cardiovascular control after an ultramarathon and their relation to performance. Eight entrants to the Canadian National Championship 100-km running race participated in the study. Pulmonary function and 30-s maximum voluntary ventilation (MVV30s) tests were conducted one day before the race and within 5 minutes of race completion. Heart rate and blood pressure data were collected 30 min before and 5 min after the race as well as during a 10-min stand test one day prior to the race. During the race, beat-by-beat R-R interval data were collected over the first and last 20 km. The results showed that MVV30s and MVV30s tidal volumes were reduced postrace (p < 0.001). Prerace supine total harmonic variation (p < 0.01) and prerace MVV values (10 s to 30 s) (p < 0.05) were correlated with race finish time. The changes in pulmonary function and MVV30s values from pre- and postrace were not significantly correlated to race performance. We conclude that maximal sustainable ventilatory power and dynamic autonomic cardiovascular control are important factors in determining overall performance in an ultramarathon.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations12
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Applied PhysiologySame topicCardiovascular Effects of ExerciseFrench-language works237,207