Effect of repeated-sprints on the reliability of short-term parasympathetic reactivation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study determined the reliability of post-exercise heart rate recovery (HRR) and vagal-related HR variability (HRV) after repeated-sprints (RSs), and contrasted it with the smallest worthwhile change (SWC) of these indices. Fourteen healthy male participants performed on four occasions, separated by 7 days, five 30-m sprints interspersed by 25-s of recovery. Post-exercise HR during 10 min of seated rest was measured. HRR during the first 60-s of recovery was computed (HRR60s). HRV indices were calculated in time and frequency domains during the last 5-min of the recovery. Absolute and relative reliability were assessed by typical error of measurement expressed as coefficient of variation (CV) and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), respectively. Sensitivity was assessed comparing SWC to the typical error of measurement. CV ranged from 3.6% to 13.5% and from 6.3% to 109.2% for the HRR and HRV indices, respectively. ICCs were from 0.78 to 0.96 and from 0.76 to 0.92, respectively. HRR and HRV indices showed large discrepancies reliability. HRR60s and the square root of the mean sum of the squared differences between R-R intervals presented the highest levels of both absolute and relative reliability. However, SWC was lower than the typical error of measurement, indicating insufficient sensitivity to confidently detect small, but meaningful, changes in HRR and HRV indices.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".