Measurement of a True V˙O2max during a Ramp Incremental Test Is Not Confirmed by a Verification Phase
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The accuracy of an exhaustive ramp incremental (RI) test to determine maximal oxygen uptake (V̇O2max) was recently questioned and the utilization of a verification phase proposed as a gold standard. This study compared the oxygen uptake (V̇O2) during a RI test to that obtained during a verification phase aimed to confirm attainment of V̇O2max. Sixty-one healthy males (31 older (O) 65±5 yrs.; 30 younger (Y) 25±4 yrs.) performed a RI test (15-20 W/min for O and 25 W/min for Y). At the end of the RI test, a 5-min recovery period was followed by a verification phase of constant load cycling to fatigue at either 85% (n= 16) or 105% (n= 45) of the peak power output obtained from the RI test. The highest V̇O2 after the RI test (39.8±11.5 mL∙kg-1∙min-1) and the verification phase (40.1±11.2 mL∙kg-1∙min-1) were not different (p=0.33) and they were highly correlated (r=0.99; p<0.01). This response was not affected by age or intensity of the verification phase. The Bland-Altman analysis revealed a very small absolute bias (-0.25 mL∙kg-1∙min-1, not different from 0) and a precision of ±1.56 mL∙kg-1∙min-1 between measures. This study indicated that a verification phase does not highlight an under-estimation of V̇O2max derived from a RI test, in a large and heterogeneous group of healthy younger and older men naïve to laboratory testing procedures. Moreover, only minor within-individual differences were observed between the maximal V̇O2 elicited during the RI and the verification phase. Thus a verification phase does not add any validation of the determination of a V̇O2max. Therefore, the recommendation that a verification phase should become a gold standard procedure, although initially appealing, is not supported by the experimental data.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".