Influence of muscle metabolic heterogeneity in determining the V<scp>o</scp><sub>2p</sub>kinetic response to ramp-incremental exercise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The pulmonary O2 uptake (V̇o2p) response to ramp-incremental (RI) exercise increases linearly with work rate (WR) after an early exponential phase, implying that a single time constant (τ) and gain (G) describe the response. However, variability in τ and G of V̇o2p kinetics to different step increments in WR is documented. We hypothesized that the "linear" V̇o2p-WR relationship during RI exercise results from the conflation between WR-dependent changes in τ and G. Nine men performed three or four repeats of RI exercise (30 W/min) and two step-incremental protocols consisting of four 60-W increments beginning from 20 W or 50 W. During testing, breath-by-breath V̇o2p was measured by mass spectrometry and volume turbine. For each individual, the V̇o2p RI response was characterized with exponential functions containing either constant or variable τ and G values. A relationship between τ and G vs. WR was determined from the step-incremental protocols to derive the variable model parameters. τ and G increased from 21 ± 5 to 98 ± 20 s and from 8.7 ± 0.6 to 12.0 ± 1.9 ml·min(-1)·W(-1) for WRs of 20-230 W, respectively, and were best described by a second-order (τ) and a first-order (G) polynomial function of WR (lowest Akaike information criterion score). The sum of squared residuals was not different (P > 0.05) when the V̇o2p RI response was characterized with either the constant or variable models, indicating that they described the response equally well. Results suggest that τ and G increase progressively with WR during RI exercise. Importantly, these relationships may conflate to produce a linear V̇o2p-WR response, emphasizing the influence of metabolic heterogeneity in determining the apparent V̇o2p-WR relationship during RI exercise.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".