Prediction of Functional Threshold Power from Graded Exercise Test Data in Highly-Trained Individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
International Journal of Exercise Science 15(4): 747-759, 2022. The purpose of the current investigation was to derive an equation that could predict Functional Threshold Power (FTP) from Graded Exercise Test (GxT) data. The FTP test has been demonstrated to represent the highest cycling power output that can be maintained in a quasi-steady state for 60-min. Previous investigations to determine a comparable marker derived from a Graded Exercise test have had limited success to date. Consequently, the current study aimed to predict FTP from GxT data to provide an additional index of cycling performance. FTP has been reported to provide an insight not provided by a GxT and, in addition, does not require a formal exercise testing facility. The study design facilitated a deliberate and transparent sequence of statistical decisions, resolved in part from the perspective of exercise physiology. Seventy triathletes (male n=50, female n=20) completed cycling GxT and FTP tests in sequential order. Collected data (power output, blood lactate indices, VO2peak, body mass) were analysed using stepwise regression to identify the key parameters for predicting FTP, and confirmed using a Leave One Out (LOO) cross-validation. As a consequence of wittingly including some likely transiently highly correlated parameters on the basis of a physiological argument, the model’s function is limited to predicting FTP. This investigation concluded the model (FTP = -6.62 + 0.32 FBLC-4 + 0.42 BM + 0.46 Pmax) was the prediction model of choice.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".