How to test maximal oxygen uptake: a study on timing and testing procedure of a supramaximal verification test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Verification tests are becoming increasingly common for confirming maximal oxygen uptake (VO2 max) attainment. Yet, timing and testing procedures vary between working groups. The aims of this study were to investigate whether verification tests can be performed after an incremental test or should be performed on a separate day, and whether VO2 max can still be determined within the first testing session in subjects not satisfying the verification criterion. Forty subjects (age, 24 ± 4 years; VO2 max, 50 ± 7 mL·min-1·kg-1) performed a maximal incremental treadmill test and, 10 min afterwards, a verification test (VerifDay1) at 110% of maximal velocity (vmax). The verification criterion was a VerifDay1 peak oxygen uptake (VO2 peak) ≤5.5% higher than the incremental test value. Subjects not achieving the verification criterion performed another verification test at 115% vmax (VerifDay1') 10 min later, trying to confirm VerifDay1 VO2 peak as VO2 max. All other subjects exclusively repeated VerifDay1 on a separate day (VerifDay2). Of the 40 subjects, 6 did not satisfy the verification criterion. In 4 of them, attainment of VO2 max was confirmed by VerifDay1'. VO2 peak was equivalent between VerifDay1 and VerifDay2 (3722 ± 991 mL·min-1 vs. 3752 ± 995 mL·min-1, p = 0.56), whereas time to exhaustion was significantly longer in VerifDay2 (2:06 ± 0:22 min:s vs. 2:42 ± 0:38 min:s, p < 0.001, n = 34). The verification test VO2 peak does not seem to be affected by a preceding maximal incremental test. Incremental and verification tests can therefore be performed within the same testing session. In individuals not achieving the verification criterion, VO2 max can be determined by means of a subsequent, more intense verification test in most but not all cases.
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 | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".