PlanHab: hypoxia exaggerates the bed-rest-induced reduction in peak oxygen uptake during upright cycle ergometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study examined the effects of hypoxia and horizontal bed rest, separately and in combination, on peak oxygen uptake (V̇o2 peak) during upright cycle ergometry. Ten male lowlanders underwent three 21-day confinement periods in a counterbalanced order: 1) normoxic bed rest [NBR; partial pressure of inspired O2 (PiO2 ) = 133.1 ± 0.3 mmHg]; 2) hypoxic bed rest (HBR; PiO2 = 90.0 ± 0.4 mmHg), and 3) hypoxic ambulation (HAMB; PiO2 = 90.0 ± 0.4 mmHg). Before and after each confinement, subjects performed two incremental-load trials to exhaustion, while inspiring either room air (AIR), or a hypoxic gas (HYPO; PiO2 = 90.0 ± 0.4 mmHg). Changes in regional oxygenation of the vastus lateralis muscle and the frontal cerebral cortex were monitored with near-infrared spectroscopy. Cardiac output (CO) was recorded using a bioimpedance method. The AIR V̇o2 peak was decreased by both HBR (∼13.5%; P ≤ 0.001) and NBR (∼8.6%; P ≤ 0.001), with greater drop after HBR (P = 0.01). The HYPO V̇o2 peak was also reduced by HBR (-9.7%; P ≤ 0.001) and NBR (-6.1%; P ≤ 0.001). Peak CO was lower after both bed-rest interventions, and especially after HBR (HBR: ∼13%, NBR: ∼7%; P ≤ 0.05). Exercise-induced alterations in muscle and cerebral oxygenation were blunted in a similar manner after both bed-rest confinements. No changes were observed in HAMB. Hence, the bed-rest-induced decrease in V̇o2 peak was exaggerated by hypoxia, most likely due to a reduction in convective O2 transport, as indicated by the lower peak values of CO.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".