Faster oxygen uptake, heart rate, and ventilatory kinetics in stepping compared with cycle ergometry in patients with COPD during moderate-intensity exercise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Step tests are a stressful and feasible cost-effective modality to evaluate aerobic performance. However, the eccentric in addition to concentric muscle contractions of the legs on stepping emerge as a potential speeding factor for cardioventilatory and metabolic adjustments towards a steady-state, since eccentric contractions would prompt an earlier and stronger mechanoreceptor activation, as well as higher heart rate/cardiac output adjustments to the same metabolic demand. Moreover, shorter tests are ideal for exercise-limited subjects. Nine subjects with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were invited to participate in comprehensive lung function tests and constant work tests performed on different days at a 90% gas exchange threshold for 6 min, in single-step tests or cycle ergometry. After careful monoexponential regression modelling, statistically relevant faster phase II time constants for oxygen uptake (45 ± 18 s vs 53 ± 17 s, p = 0.017) and minute ventilation (61 ± 13 s vs 74 ± 17 s, p = 0.027) were observed in the 6-min step tests compared with cycle ergometry, respectively. Despite an absence of heart rate time constant difference (43 ± 20 s vs 69 ± 46 s, p = 0.167), there was a significantly faster rate constant toward a steady state for heart rate (p = 0.02). In addition, 4-min compared with 6-min analysis presented similar results (p > 0.05), providing an appropriate steady-state. We conclude that step tests might elicit faster time constants compared with cycle ergometry, at the same average metabolic level, and 4-min analysis has similar mean errors compared with 6-min analysis within an acceptable range. New studies, comprising mechanisms and detailed physiological backgrounds, are necessary.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".