Adjustments of pulmonary O<sub>2</sub>uptake and muscle deoxygenation during ramp incremental exercise and constant-load moderate-intensity exercise in young and older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The matching of muscle O(2) delivery to O(2) utilization can be inferred from the adjustments in muscle deoxygenation (Δ[HHb]) and pulmonary O(2) uptake (Vo(2p)). This study examined the adjustments of Vo(2p) and Δ[HHb] during ramp incremental (RI) and constant-load (CL) exercise in adult males. Ten young adults (YA; age: 25 ± 5 yr) and nine older adults (OA; age: 70 ± 3 yr) completed two RI tests and six CL step transitions to a work rate (WR) corresponding to 1) 80% of the estimated lactate threshold (same relative WR) and 2) 50 W (same absolute WR). Vo(2p) was measured breath by breath, and Δ[HHb] of the vastus lateralis was measured using near-infrared spectroscopy. Δ[HHb]-WR profiles were normalized from baseline (0%) to peak Δ[HHb] (100%) and fit using a sigmoid function. The sigmoid slope (d) was greater (P < 0.05) in OA (0.027 ± 0.01%/W) compared with YA (0.017 ± 0.01%/W), and the c/d value (a value corresponding to 50% of the amplitude) was smaller (P < 0.05) for OA (133 ± 40 W) than for YA (195 ± 51 W). No age-related differences in the sigmoid parameters were reported when WR was expressed as a percentage of peak WR. Vo(2p) kinetics compared with Δ[HHb] kinetics for the 50-W transition were similar between YA and OA; however, Δ[HHb] kinetics during the transition to 80% of the lactate threshold were faster than Vo(2p) kinetics in both groups. The greater reliance on O(2) extraction displayed in OA during RI exercise suggests a lower O(2) delivery-to-O(2) utilization relationship at a given absolute WR compared with YA.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".