MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Evaluation Of Maximal Oxygen Uptake Using Verification Phases Of Different Intensities Across Fitness Levels

2020· article· en· W3042150476 on OpenAlexaff
Seth F. McCarthy, Jarryd MP Leung, Tom J. Hazell

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVO2 maxRespiratory exchange ratioWorkloadTreadmillMedicineCardiorespiratory fitnessHeart ratePhysical therapyMathematicsAnimal scienceStatisticsInternal medicineComputer scienceBiologyBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Confirmation of maximal oxygen consumption (V˙O2max) has relevance in both clinical and exercise settings. Though there are criteria in place to confirm V˙O2max has been attained, they are inconsistently achieved. For example, a plateau in V˙O2 with a corresponding increase in workload is often absent, and other criteria such as a respiratory exchange ratio (RER) ≥1.15 or heart rate (HR) within 10 beats per min (bpm) of age predicted maximum can result in an inaccurate estimate of V˙O2max. Due to these shortcomings, some researchers have suggested the use of a verification phase (VP) to confirm the attainment of V˙O2max. PURPOSE: Therefore, this study aimed to provide further evidence for the need to use a VP with V˙O2max testing protocols in populations of different fitness levels. METHODS: 49 participants (M: 27, F: 22; 21.9±2.6 y, 24.3±2.8 kg·m2) had their V˙O2 and HR measured during three maximal graded treadmill tests with each test followed by a VP of differing intensity (85%, 95%, 105% final workload). Participants were divided into groups based on their V˙O2max using norms adapted from American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) V˙O2max guidelines (poor, fair, good, excellent) resulting in 7, 19, 18, and 5 participants respectively. V˙O2max from the graded treadmill test was confirmed with the VP and/or an additional test if the highest V˙O2 value achieved was no more than 2 x typical error (TE: 1.9 to 3.7 mL·kg-1·min-1 across groups). RESULTS: Plateau was achieved on 43/147 tests (29%), RER ≥ 1.15 was achieved on 104/147 tests (71%), HR within 10 bpm of age-predicted max was achieved on 83/147 tests (56%), and volitional fatigue was reached on 147/147 tests (100%). The highest V˙O2 value attained on the initial V˙O2max test was not different than either value attained following the VP at 95 or 105% of final V˙O2max test workload or a second repeat test on a separate day (P>0.211). The 85% VP V˙O2 value was lower than the initial V˙O2max test value (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: While traditional criteria to confirm the attainment of V˙O2max were inconsistently achieved, the use of a VP (at 95 or 105%) or a subsequent repeat test on a separate day were able to confirm the V˙O2max value attained. Our data also suggests exercise studies employing only a single V˙O2max test should consider these inconsistencies across a range of fitness levels.

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 score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & ExerciseSame topicCardiovascular and exercise physiologyFrench-language works237,207