Comparison between parameters from maximal cycle ergometer test first without respiratory gas analysis and thereafter with respiratory gas analysis among healthy prepubertal children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is important to distinguish true and clinically relevant changes and methodological noise from measure to measure. In the clinical practice, maximal cycle ergometer tests are typically performed first without respiratory gas analysis and thereafter, if needed, with respiratory gas analysis. Therefore, we report a comparison of parameters from maximal cycle ergometer exercise tests that were done first without respiratory gas analysis and thereafter with it in 38 prepubertal and healthy children (20 girls, 18 boys). The Bland-Altman method was used to assess agreement in maximal workload (WMAX), heart rate (HR), and systolic blood pressure (SBP) between rest and maximum. Girls achieved higher WMAX in the exercise tests with respiratory gas analysis compared with exercise tests without respiratory gas analysis (p = 0.016), whereas WMAX was similar in the tests among boys. Maximal HR (proportional offset, -1%; coefficients of variation, 3.3%) and highest SBP (proportional offset, 3%; coefficients of variation, 10.6%) were similar in the tests among children. Precision and agreement for HR improved and precision for SBP worsened with increasing exercise intensity. Heteroscedasticity was not observed for WMAX, HR, or SBP. We conclude that maximal cycle ergometer tests without and with respiratory gas analysis can be used consecutively because measurement of respiratory gases did not impair performance or have a significant effect on the maximality of the exercise tests. Our results suggest that similar references can be used for children who accept or refuse using a mask during a maximal exercise test.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".