Physiological Responses to Repeated Running Sprint Ability Tests: A Systematic Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to review acute physiological responses induced by repeated running sprint ability (RRSA) tests that could serve as references for practitioners utilising repeated sprints as a performance measure with athletes. This research was conducted following the PRISMA methodology. The systematic search was conducted in November 2019 and yielded 26 different scientific articles. Only peer-reviewed full-text article were included as abstracts are too short to allow proper explanation of the RRSAT methodology that was employed. According to the present literature, practitioners should use the following assessments: the 6×40m RRSA protocol with one Change of Direction (COD) (20+20 m with a 180° COD) and 25s of passive recovery between sprints with soccer players; the Intensive Repeated Sprint Ability (IRSA) test with men basketball players; the Futsal Intermittent Endurance Test (FIET) with futsal players; the Repeated Shuttle Sprint Test (RSST) with men handball players; and the Multiple Repeated Sprint Ability test for Badminton players (MRSAB). The present review should serve as a reference standard for RRSA tests. Further research should be directed towards creating and validating more specific RRSA tests protocols to each sports physiological and physical demands.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it