Maximal Aerobic Capacity Testing of Older Adults: A Critical Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most of the data that describe maximal oxygen uptake (VO(2max)) and the requirements for its attainment have been developed using young adults as subjects. Many older adults are unable to satisfactorily complete a maximal exercise effort in a standard exercise stress test. This review describes exercise tests currently available to measure VO(2max) in older adults. PubMed and CINAHL databases were searched for studies including healthy individuals older than 65 years with reproducible descriptions of the testing protocol. The research on VO(2max) testing in healthy individuals older than 65 years is limited, does not describe the protocols in detail, and/or lacks information on the psychometric properties of the exercise tests. There is a need for refinement of the few existing protocols for testing aerobic capacity in older adults, as well as the development of new protocols specifically applicable to older adults. Consensus on the criteria defining VO(2max) attainment during exercise in older adults is required, as well as agreement on the most appropriate exercise protocols and equipment, specific to older adults, to successfully fulfil these criteria.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".