MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097299608 · doi:10.1155/2013/879695

The Physiologic Effects of an Acute Bout of Supramaximal High-Intensity Interval Training Compared with a Continuous Exercise Bout in Patients with COPD

2013· article· en· W2097299608 on OpenAlexafffund
Scotty Butcher, Madison T. Yurach, Nichole M. Heynen, Brendan J. Pikaluk, Karla J. Horvey, Ron Clemens, Darcy D. Marciniuk

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Respiratory Medicine · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersSaskatchewan Health Research Foundation
KeywordsAlgorithmInterval trainingMedicineMathematicsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study compared physiological responses and work performed during a supramaximal high-intensity interval exercise training session (HIIT) and a constant work rate (CWR) exercise session. Fourteen patients with COPD (mean FEV 1 <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M1"><mml:mn fontstyle="italic">53</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn fontstyle="italic">13</mml:mn></mml:math>% predicted (±SD)) completed an incremental cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET) and a steep ramp anaerobic test (SRAT) and then two exercise bouts to symptom limitation on separate days, in random order: (1) a CWR trial at 80% of CPET peak work rate (mean <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M2"><mml:mn fontstyle="italic">63</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn fontstyle="italic">15</mml:mn></mml:math> W) and (2) a HIIT trial using repeats of 30 s at 70% of SRAT peak work rate (mean <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M3"><mml:mn fontstyle="italic">112</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn fontstyle="italic">29</mml:mn></mml:math> W) followed by 90 s at 20% of CPET peak work rate. Subjects ceased exercise primarily due to dyspnea for both HIIT and CWR (64% vs. 57%, resp.). End-exercise <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M4"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mrow><mml:mi>V</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi>E</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math>, HR, dyspnea, and leg fatigue were similar between the two exercise protocols. Average work rate was lower in HIIT than CWR (32 vs. 63 W, <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M5"><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn fontstyle="italic">0.05</mml:mn></mml:math>); however, subjects performed HIIT longer (542 vs. 202 s, <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M6"><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn fontstyle="italic">0.05</mml:mn></mml:math>) and for greater total work (23.3 vs. 12.0 kJ, <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M7"><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn fontstyle="italic">0.05</mml:mn></mml:math>). The supramaximal HIIT protocol was well tolerated and demonstrated similar maximal physiologic responses to constant work rate exercise, but with greater leg muscle work performed and greater peak exercise intensity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.716
Threshold uncertainty score0.468

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations7
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Respiratory MedicineSame topicCardiovascular and exercise physiologyFrench-language works237,207