Examination of the Moxus Modular Metabolic System by the Douglas-bag technique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the performance of the Moxus Modular Metabolic System from AEI Technologies, Inc. using the Douglas-bag method as reference. To achieve this, eight moderately trained subjects cycled for 5 min at constant powers from 50 to 300 W in increments of 50 W. The O₂ uptake was measured simultaneously by both systems during the last minute of each stage. The O₂ uptake reported by the Moxus system was 83 ± 78 mL·min⁻¹ higher (mean ± SD; ≈3%, +62 µmol·s⁻¹, P < 0.001) than that reported by the Douglas-bag method; the bias varied by ≈2% between the subjects. The higher O₂ uptake of the Moxus system was a consequence of 1.4% ± 3.0% higher reported ventilation and 2% ± 3% higher reported O₂ extraction per volume of air breathed. The respiratory exchange ratio (R value) reported by the Moxus system rose proportionally to that of the Douglas-bag method and was 1% ± 2% higher for the range examined (0.75-1.10). Repeated tests of the maximal O₂ uptake showed a variability (coefficient of variation) of 2.5%. The study concluded that measurements by the Moxus system showed some bias and residual variation and, in addition, some systematic differences between the subjects in the O₂ uptake. The R value was reported quite accurately with moderate random error. Although there were some computer software and hardware instability problems that need to be solved, the Moxus system worked quite well and provided data more reliable than those of most commercial instruments.
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) | 0.000 | 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".