Influence of phase I duration on phase II V<scp>o</scp><sub>2</sub> kinetics parameter estimates in older and young adults
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Older adults (O) may have a longer phase I pulmonary O(2) uptake kinetics (Vo(2)(p)) than young adults (Y); this may affect parameter estimates of phase II Vo(2)(p). Therefore, we sought to: 1) experimentally estimate the duration of phase I Vo(2)(p) (EE phase I) in O and Y subjects during moderate-intensity exercise transitions; 2) examine the effects of selected phase I durations (i.e., different start times for modeling phase II) on parameter estimates of the phase II Vo(2)(p) response; and 3) thereby determine whether slower phase II kinetics in O subjects represent a physiological difference or a by-product of fitting strategy. Vo(2)(p) was measured breath-by-breath in 19 O (68 ± 6 yr; mean ± SD) and 19 Y (24 ± 5 yr) using a volume turbine and mass spectrometer. Phase I Vo(2)(p) was longer in O (31 ± 4 s) than Y (20 ± 7 s) (P < 0.05). In O, phase II τVo(2)(p) was larger (P < 0.05) when fitting started at 15 s (49 ± 12 s) compared with fits starting at the individual EE phase I (43 ± 12 s), 25 s (42 ± 10 s), 35 s (42 ± 12 s), and 45 s (45 ± 15 s). In Y, τVo(2)(p) was not affected by the time at which phase II Vo(2)(p) fitting started (τVo(2)(p) = 31 ± 7 s, 29 ± 9 s, 30 ± 10 s, 32 ± 11 s, and 30 ± 8 s for fittings starting at 15 s, 25 s, 35 s, 45 s, and EE phase I, respectively). Fitting from EE phase I, 25 s, or 35 s resulted in the smallest CI τVo(2)(p) in both O and Y. Thus, fitting phase II Vo(2)(p) from (but not constrained to) 25 s or 35 s provides consistent estimates of Vo(2)(p) kinetics parameters in Y and O, despite the longer phase I Vo(2)(p) in O.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it