Peak Cardiac Output Determined Using Inert Gas Rebreathing: A Comparison of Two Exercise Protocols
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare Q˙peak elicited by a constant load protocol ( Q˙CL ) and an incremental step protocol ( Q˙step ). METHODS: A noninferiority randomized crossover trial was used to compare Q˙peak between protocols using a noninferiority margin of 0.5 L·min -1 . Participants ( n = 34 (19 female, 15 male); 25 ± 5 yr) performed two baseline V̇O 2peak tests to determine peak heart rate (HR peak ) and peak work rate ( Wpeak ). Participants then performed the Q˙CL and Q˙step protocols each on two separate occasions with the order of the four visits randomized. Q˙peak was measured using IGR (Innocor; COSMED, Rome, Italy). The Q˙CL protocol involved a V̇O 2peak test followed 10 min later by cycling at 90% Wpeak , with IGR initiated after 2 min. Q˙step involved an incremental step test with IGR initiated when the participant's HR reached 5 bpm below their HR peak . The first Q˙CL and Q˙step tests were compared for noninferiority, and the second series of tests was used to measure repeatability (typical error (TE)). RESULTS: The Q˙CL protocol was noninferior to Q˙step ( Q˙CL = 17.1 ± 3.2, Q˙step = 16.8 ± 3.1 L·min -1 ; 95% confidence intervals, -0.16 to 0.72 L·min -1 ). The baseline V̇O 2peak (3.13 ± 0.83 L·min -1 ) was achieved during Q˙CL (3.12 ± 0.72, P = 0.87) and Q˙step (3.12 ± 0.80, P = 0.82). The TE values for Q˙peak were 6.6% and 8.3% for Q˙CL and Q˙step , respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The Q˙CL protocol was noninferior to Q˙step and may be more convenient because of the reduced time commitment to perform the measurement.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".