Physiological responses to ramp-incremental cycling tests performed at three simulated altitudes: a randomized crossover trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hypoxia negatively impacts aerobic exercise, but exercise testing in hypoxia has not been studied comprehensively. To determine the effects of simulated altitude on the gas exchange threshold (GET), respiratory compensation point (RCP), and maximal oxygen uptake (V̇O2max), 24 participants (mean [SD]; 26 [4] years; 171.6 [9.7] cm; 69.2 [11.9] kg) acclimatized to mild altitude (MILD; ∼1100 m) performed three cycling ramp-incremental exercise tests (with verification stages performed at 110% of peak power output (PPO)) in simulated altitudes of 0 m (sea level, SL), 1111 m (MILD), and 2222 m (moderate altitude, MOD), in a randomized order. There were significant effects of condition (i.e., fraction of inspired oxygen [FIO2]) for GET ( p = 0.001), RCP ( p < 0.001), V̇O2max ( p < 0.001), and PPO ( p < 0.001). The V̇O2 corresponding to GET and RCP (mL·kg−1·min−1) in MOD (24.1 [4.3]; 37.3 [5.1]) were significantly lower ( p < 0.05) compared to SL (27.1 [4.4]; 41.8 [6.6]) and MILD (26.8 [5.7]; 40.7 [7.3]) but similar ( p > 0.05) between SL and MILD. For each increase in simulated altitude, V̇O2max (SL: 51.3 [7.4]; MILD: 50.0 [7.6]; MOD: 47.3 [7.1] mL·kg−1·min−1) and PPO (SL: 332 [80]; MILD: 327 [78]; SL: 316 [76] W) decreased significantly ( p < 0.05 for all comparisons). V̇O2max values from the verification stage were lower than those measured during the ramp-incremental test ( p = 0.017). Overall, a mild simulated altitude had a significant effect on V̇O2max and PPO but not GET and RCP, MOD decreased all four variables, and the inclusion of a verification stage had little effect on the determination of V̇O2max in a group of young healthy adults regardless of the FIO2. Trial registration: Open Science Framework 10.17605/OSF.IO/ZTC9E.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".