Measurements of Cardiac Output During Constant Exercises: Comparison of Two Non-Invasive Techniques
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
We compared cardiac output (CO) determined simultaneously by electrical impedance cardiography method (CO (ICG)) and by the CO (2) rebreathing technique (CO (2REB)) during three different steady-state exercises (target heart rate of 120, 140, and 160 min (-1)) in 8 healthy fit young men. The mean difference correlation coefficient obtained between the values of CO (ICG) and CO (2REB) was 0.85 and the mean difference (CO (ICG)-CO (2REB)) was 0.06 l/min (0.12 %). At 120 min (-1), CO (ICG) was lower than CO (2REB) but the tendency was reversed at 140 and 160 min (-1) where CO (ICG) was higher than CO (2REB). This evolution may be explained by the difficulty of using CO (2) rebreathing technique at the highest steady-state exercises and by the progressive acidemia due to exercise. The present results suggest that electrical impedance cardiography method provides acceptable evaluation of CO and may favourably replace the CO (2) rebreathing technique during mild (or moderate) to high steady-state exercises.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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