Duration of “Phase I” V<scp>o</scp><sub>2</sub><sub>p</sub>: a comparison of methods used in its estimation and the effects of varying moderate-intensity work rate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study was designed to investigate whether absolute work rate (WR) affects Phase I pulmonary oxygen uptake (Vo(2)(p)) duration during moderate-intensity (Mod) exercise and to compare two methods for estimating Phase I Vo(2)(p) duration (P(I-Dur)). Fourteen males (24 ± 5 yr) each completed 4-8 repetitions of Mod transitions from 20 W to 50, 70, 90, 110, and 130 W. P(I-Dur) was identified by 1) a marked decrease in both respiratory exchange ratio and end-tidal partial pressure of O(2) following exercise onset [i.e., visual inspection of three independent reviewers, and the average (Avg) of the two most similar values]; or 2) the intersection (time delay, TD) of the first and second components in a biexponential nonlinear regression of the entire Vo(2)(p) response from exercise onset. P(I-Dur) did not differ among WRs (P > 0.05), regardless of the estimation method used. No differences were detected between Avg and TD (time in s) at any of the five WRs (50 W, 21 ± 6 vs. 23 ± 10 s; 70 W, 23 ± 9 vs. 23 ± 7 s; 90 W, 24 ± 3 vs. 22 ± 5 s; 110 W, 23 ± 6 vs. 22 ± 6 s; 130 W, 21 ± 6 vs. 21 ± 7 s; P > 0.05 for Avg and TD, respectively). Broad limits of agreement within Bland-Altman plots revealed relatively weak agreement among reviewers for individual estimation of P(I-Dur). A nonsignificant correlation coefficient (r = 0.13) and broad limits of agreement suggest disparity between individual Avg and TD estimates of P(I-Dur). The present data do not support a role for Mod WR in determining P(I-Dur) per se. Furthermore, this study illustrated a poor agreement of P(I-Dur) estimates derived from two different, but accepted methods.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".