Human ventilatory responsiveness to hypoxia is unrelated to maximal aerobic capacity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ventilatory responsiveness to hypoxia (HVR) has been reported to be different between highly trained endurance athletes and healthy sedentary controls. However, a linkage between aerobic capacity and HVR has not been a universal finding. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between HVR and maximal oxygen consumption (VO2 max) in healthy men with a wide range of aerobic capacities. Subjects performed a HVR test followed by an incremental cycle test to exhaustion. Participants were classified according to their maximal aerobic capacity. Those with a VO2 max of >or=60 ml x kg(-1) x min(-1) were considered highly trained (n = 13); those with a VO2 max of 50-60 ml x kg(-1) x min(-1) were considered moderately-trained (n = 18); and those with a VO2 max of <50 ml x kg(-1) x min(-1) were considered untrained (n = 24). No statistical differences were detected between the three groups for HVR (P > 0.05), and the HVR values were variable within each group (range: untrained = 0.28-1.61, moderately trained = 0.23-2.39, and highly trained = 0.08-1.73 l x min.%arterial O2 saturation(-1)). The relationship between HVR and VO2 max was not statistically significant (r = -0.1723; P > 0.05). HVR was also unrelated to maximal minute ventilation and ventilatory equivalents for O2 and CO2. We found that a spectrum of hypoxic ventilatory control is present in well-trained endurance athletes and moderately and untrained men. We interpret these observations to mean that other factors are more important in determining hypoxic ventilatory control than physical conditioning per se.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".