Does recombinant human Epo increase exercise capacity by means other than augmenting oxygen transport?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was performed to test the hypothesis that administration of recombinant human erythropoietin (rHuEpo) in humans increases maximal oxygen consumption by augmenting the maximal oxygen carrying capacity of blood. Systemic and leg oxygen delivery and oxygen uptake were studied during exercise in eight subjects before and after 13 wk of rHuEpo treatment and after isovolemic hemodilution to the same hemoglobin concentration observed before the start of rHuEpo administration. At peak exercise, leg oxygen delivery was increased from 1,777.0+/-102.0 ml/min before rHuEpo treatment to 2,079.8+/-120.7 ml/min after treatment. After hemodilution, oxygen delivery was decreased to the pretreatment value (1,710.3+/-138.1 ml/min). Fractional leg arterial oxygen extraction was unaffected at maximal exercise; hence, maximal leg oxygen uptake increased from 1,511.0+/-130.1 ml/min before treatment to 1,793.0+/-148.7 ml/min with rHuEpo and decreased after hemodilution to 1,428.0+/-111.6 ml/min. Pulmonary oxygen uptake at peak exercise increased from 3,950.0+/-160.7 before administration to 4,254.5+/-178.4 ml/min with rHuEpo and decreased to 4,059.0+/-161.1 ml/min with hemodilution (P=0.22, compared with values before rHuEpo treatment). Blood buffer capacity remained unaffected by rHuEpo treatment and hemodilution. The augmented hematocrit did not compromise peak cardiac output. In summary, in healthy humans, rHuEpo increases maximal oxygen consumption due to augmented systemic and muscular peak oxygen delivery.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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 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".