MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139750360

Treadmill and Cycle Ergometer Tests are Interchangeable to Monitor Triathletes Annual Training.

2003· article· en· W2139750360 on OpenAlexaff
Fabien A. Basset, Marcel R. Boulay

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTreadmillCycle ergometerCyclingMedicineVO2 maxPhysical therapyHeart rateVentilatory thresholdBicycle ergometerInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to verify the use of a single test to obtain annual training guidelines applicable to multiple modes of training. Eight triathletes (4 females, 4 males) were tested 3 times during their training year (Phase I; Phase II; Phase III) on a treadmill and cycle ergometer. Cardio-respiratory variables were calculated at standardized percentages of maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max; 50-100%). VO2max differences between tests reached 6% in every testing session (p ≤ 0.01). VO2max was stable for both tests throughout the season. The ANOVA (3 phases x 2 tests x 6 intensities) demonstrated that there was a significant difference for heart rate (HRs; p ≤ 0.05) between tests in Phase I only. However, the nonparametric sign test did not show any significant differences in any phase. These results demonstrated that triathletes could use the relationship between HR and % VO2max collected during a treadmill or a cycle ergometer test to obtain interchangeable reference HRs for monitoring their running and cycling training bouts in high volume and/or high intensity phases of their training year.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations38
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicCardiovascular and exercise physiologyFrench-language works237,207