Measurements of Cardiac Output During Constant Exercises: Comparison of Two Non-Invasive Techniques
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".