MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2806896965 · doi:10.1139/apnm-2018-0098

Evaluation of a graded exercise test to determine peak fat oxidation in individuals with low cardiorespiratory fitness

2018· article· en· W2806896965 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Oliver J. Chrzanowski‐Smith, Robert M. Edinburgh, James A. Betts, Keith Stokes, Javier T. Gonzalez

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Physiology Nutrition and Metabolism · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMuscle metabolism and nutrition
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Bath
KeywordsCardiorespiratory fitnessVO2 maxAnimal scienceSteady state (chemistry)Intensity (physics)Incremental exerciseMedicineChemistryMathematicsPhysical therapyHeart rateInternal medicineBiologyBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The maximal capacity to utilise fat (peak fat oxidation, PFO) may have implications for health and ultra-endurance performance and is commonly determined by incremental exercise tests employing 3-min stages. However, 3-min stages may be insufficient to attain steady-state gas kinetics, compromising test validity. We assessed whether 4-min stages produce steady-state gas exchange and reliable PFO estimates in adults with peak oxygen consumption < 40 mL·kg−1·min−1. Fifteen participants (9 females) completed a graded test to determine PFO and the intensity at which this occurred (FATMAX). Three short continuous exercise sessions (SCE) were then completed in a randomised order, involving completion of the graded test to the stage (i) preceding, (ii) equal to (SCEequal), or (iii) after the stage at which PFO was previously attained, whereupon participants then continued to cycle for 10 min at that respective intensity. Expired gases were sampled at minutes 3–4, 5–6, 7–8, and 9–10. Individual data showed steady-state gas exchange was achieved within 4 min during SCEequal. Mean fat oxidation rates were not different across time within SCEequal nor compared with the graded test at FATMAX (both p > 0.05). However, the graded test displayed poor surrogate validity (SCEequal, minutes 3–4 vs. 5–6, 7–8, and 9–10) and day-to-day reliability (minutes 3–4, SCEequal vs. graded test) to determine PFO, as evident by correlations (range: 0.47–0.83) and typical errors and 95% limits of agreement (ranges: 0.03–0.05 and ±0.09–0.15 g·min−1, respectively). In conclusion, intraindividual variation in PFO is substantial despite 4-min stages establishing steady-state gas exchange in individuals with low fitness. Individual assessment of PFO may require multiple assessments.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Physiology Nutrition and MetabolismSame topicMuscle metabolism and nutritionFrench-language works237,207