Comparison of nine heart rate-based models to predict work metabolism of Forest workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Predicted work metabolism (WM) from 9 heart rate (HR)-based models were compared to measured WM obtained during work in 39 forest workers. Using measured (i.e. raw) HR in these models can overestimate actual WM since the HR increase associated with body heat accumulation is non-metabolic. Hence, accuracy of WM prediction was assessed on all possible combinations of models using raw HR and corrected HR (thermal component removed) and with five different estimates of maximum work capacity (MWC) for the models that require it as an input. The 50 model combinations produced a wide range of WM estimates. Three models using individual calibration produced the lowest RMSE and narrowest LoA with corrected HR (rRMSE ≤13%; LoA [rBias <5% ± 25%]). One of the models that requires neither determination of the thermal component nor individual calibration performed very well (rRMSE = 18%; LoA [rBias = 1% ± 36%]). Practitioner Summary: These results provide a better understanding of the accuracy of various HR-based work metabolism (WM) estimation models. This information should prove particularly useful to ergonomics professionals wishing to select a method that provides accurate estimation of WM from HR measurements during work in varied thermal environments. Abbreviations: BMI: body mass index; HR: heart rate (beats per min); HR99: HR value exceeded during 99% of the duration of the HR recording period; HRcorr: heart rate without thermal pulses; HRraw: measured heart rate; HRres: heart rate reserve; HRrest: heart rate at rest; LoA: limits of agreement; Mrest: resting metabolism; MWC: maximum work capacity; RMSE: root mean square error; VO2: oxygen consumption; VO2 max: maximum oxygen consumption; WM: work metabolism
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".