MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4233113939 · doi:10.31236/osf.io/db7uy

Cardiopulmonary exercise testing for the measurement of maximal oxygen uptake in people with cancer-related fatigue: a retrospective analysis

2020· preprint· en· W4233113939 on OpenAlexaff
Rosie Twomey, Colin Lavigne, Tristan Martin, S. Nicole Culos‐Reed, Guillaume Y. Millet

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health ServicesUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCardiorespiratory fitnessMedicineVO2 maxPhysical therapyRating of perceived exertionCycle ergometerCancer-related fatigueHeart rateInternal medicineCardiologyCancerBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: The measurement of cardiorespiratory fitness (maximal oxygen uptake) using a cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET) has several applications in oncology. A recent analysis reported that in people with cancer, the vast majority of CPETs are discontinued before the attainment of a plateau in oxygen uptake (V̇O2) or secondary criteria. The objective of this study was to describe the attainment of a V̇O2 plateau and secondary criteria from CPET in a sample of people with cancer-related fatigue.Methods: This was a retrospective and exploratory analysis of data from 51 participants who completed a CPET as part of baseline testing for a clinical trial. The CPETs were conducted in a single laboratory by the same lead experimenter, using a cycle ergometer, standard ramp protocol and breath-by-breath gas analysis. The incidence of a V̇O2 plateau was compared for ∆V̇O2 of ≤150 ml·min-1 and a more conservative ∆V̇O2 of ≤50 ml·min-1. Independent groups dichotomized using the latter criterion were compared, including for the attainment of common secondary criteria for heart rate, rating of perceived exertion and the respiratory exchange ratio.Results: A plateau in V̇O2 was observed in 100% of tests using a criterion of ∆V̇O2 ≤150 mL·min-1, and this was reduced to 57% using a more conservative criterion of ∆V̇O2 ≤50 mL·min-1. There were no differences in the attainment of secondary criteria (or any other variable) between groups dichotomized using observation of a V̇O2 plateau.Conclusion: The validity of classic plateau criteria (∆V̇O2 ≤150 mL·min-1) to verify V̇O2max in people diagnosed with cancer is questionable (100% attainment in the present study, 57% attainment with a more conservative definition of a V̇O2 plateau). Comparing our data with previous reports, we suggest that exercising maximally to elicit V̇O2max may be more tolerable in this population using a standard ramp protocol, recumbent cycle ergometer and facemask.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCancer survivorship and care→French-language works237,207→