MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Cardiorespiratory Fitness’ Indirect Assessment With Running Metabolic Equations Among Healthy Active Men

2021· article· en· W3178404244 on OpenAlexaff
Marc-Olivier Dugas, Laurie Simard, Tommy Chevrette, Patricia Blackburn, Martin Lavallière

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCardiorespiratory fitnessVO2 maxTreadmillSports medicineMedicinePhysical fitnessMetabolic equivalentPhysical therapyStatisticsMathematicsPhysical activityHeart rateInternal medicineBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

VO2max is defined as the highest amount of oxygen the cardiovascular and pulmonary systems can supply and the highest amount of oxygen the muscular system can use during intense physical exertion. It is widely accepted as the criterion measure of cardiorespiratory fitness. Unfortunately, accessibility to VO2max’s direct measurement is restricted. Therefore, several metabolic equations have been developed to estimate VO2max using indirect calculation. The most commonly used equations are those developed by the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) and recently, the research group of Fitness Registry and the Importance of Exercise National Database developed a new metabolic equation (FRIEND). PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of the ACSM and FRIEND equations to estimate VO2max comparatively to direct O2 consumption measurement in healthy active men. METHODS: 54 healthy active men aged between 19-60y.o. (36,6±5,4)(BMI: 24,1±2,6kg/m2) performed a maximal treadmill test using a metabolic cart (Vyntus CPX) to measure direct VO2max (mL O2/kg*min-1). VO2max estimation was then calculated using ACSM and FRIEND running metabolic equations. For analysis, they were separated in two age groups (18-34 vs 35-60y.o.) to evaluate if it has an impact on the metabolic equations used. Results were compared using a two-way ANOVA. RESULTS: When compared to the direct measurement (53,9±7,2 (18-34y.o.) and 49,8±4,4 (35-60y.o.)), both ACSM and FRIEND equations showed significantly higher results in both age group (mean overestimation: 12,7; p<0,001 and 3,7; p=0,005, respectively). However, the FRIEND equation was significantly lower than the ACSM equation (mean difference: 9,0; p<0,001). Moreover, ACSM showed a very large effect size (Hedge’s g=1,84) while FRIEND showed a medium effect size (Hedge’s g=0,58). As for the two age groups, results varied similarly using the two equations (p=0,781). CONCLUSIONS: The VO2max calculated with the metabolic equations for running showed overestimated values in our male sample. The average difference between direct and indirect measurement when using the FRIEND equation suggests a better accuracy. More research is needed to evaluate the accuracy in different populations and different fitness levels to optimize the VO2 estimation formula.

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)0.003
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicCardiovascular and exercise physiology→French-language works237,207→