Use of Oxygen Pulse in Predicting Doppler-Derived Maximal Stroke Volume in Adolescents
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
Clinical exercise physiologists and physicians administering stress tests in the young have used oxygen pulse as a surrogate measure of stroke volume. It is important to recognize 1) the accuracy of O₂ pulse in predicting maximal stroke volume during exercise, and 2) the normal pattern of O₂ pulse during a progressive exercise test. This study examined both of these issues in a cohort of 44 healthy adolescent males and females (ages 14-16 years) who performed routine progressive cycle exercise to exhaustion. Gas exchange variables were measured by standard open circuit techniques. Stroke volume at rest and during exercise was assessed by the Doppler ultrasound method. At peak exercise O₂ pulse correlated closely with stroke volume (r = .73) with a SEE of 12.6 ml·beat⁻¹. Values of maximal O₂ pulse in nonathletic boys and girls were 13.3 ± 2.5 and 11.0 ± 1.7 ml·beat⁻¹, respectively. After the initial workload, a steady rise was observed in O₂ pulse, entirely reflecting an increasing arterial venous oxygen difference, with a slope of approximately 4 ml/beat per 100 watts work load. The findings support the use of O₂ pulse as a valid predictor of stroke volume during exercise in youth with a moderately high level of accuracy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 it