Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This review provides a bridge between assessment of the physiologic response to exercise testing and application of the principles of aerobic training by physiotherapists in a clinical setting. It is intended to be of interest to physiotherapists who do not conduct clinical exercise tests but may be presented with the results of such tests. Summary of Key Points: Small changes in the physiologic capacity of patients with limited reserve (cardiovascular, respiratory, or neuromuscular) often have a substantial impact on their symptoms and ability to perform daily activities. The primary outcome measure of an exercise test is aerobic capacity (oxygen uptake), the main determinant of the ability to sustain the power requirements of repetitive physical activity. The test protocol is designed to enable a wide range of exercise intensity (power) to be presented over a short time, under controlled conditions. Key indicators of the appropriateness of the systemic response include an increase in heart rate and ventilation. Aerobic training will enhance peak oxygen uptake and therefore have a substantial impact on physical performance. Conclusions: Understanding the physiologic basis of aerobic testing will assist physiotherapists in using exercise tests to design, monitor, and evaluate aerobic training programs.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.008 |
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".