Physiological Responses to Repeated Running Sprint Ability Tests: A Systematic Review
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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".