MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

The Effect Of A Semi-upright Body Position On Oxygen Consumption Kinetics During Submaximal Cycling

2023· article· en· W4387061602 on OpenAlexaff
Jacob L. Schwartz, Adam N. Di Salvo, Jonaline B. Bernal, Daniel C. Basile, Robert F. Bentley

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCyclingBody positionHeart rateCardiologyOxygenVO2 maxChemistryAnimal scienceMathematicsInternal medicineMedicinePhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationBlood pressureBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Assessments of cardiac function, including stress echocardiography and exercise right heart catheterization, are typically completed in a semi-upright (SU) cycling position. This position poses a unique hemodynamic challenge and while oxygen uptake (VO2) kinetics during upright (UR) cycling are well known, how exercising in a SU position may influence VO2 kinetics during exercise is poorly understood. PURPOSE: To compare the time required to reach 63% of steady state (tau) between an UR and SU body position during submaximal cycling exercise. METHODS: Twenty healthy individuals (22 ± 3 yr, 50% male) completed alternating sequential five-minute bouts of submaximal UR and SU (40° incline) cycling at 50 W and 100 W on electronically braked ergometers. Starting body position was randomly assigned and counterbalanced (n = 10 UR; n = 10 SU). To explore the rest to exercise transition, the first 50 W stage was used for this analysis. Breath-by-breath VO2 was obtained, and local outliers were removed. Data was linearly interpolated at 1-s intervals, time aligned to the beginning of exercise, and fit with a mono-exponential model encompassing both the cardiodynamic phase I and phase II rise in VO2. Tau and overall gain were assessed along with constituents of VO2 during the final 30 sec of exercise. Data are ∆ from seated rest and reported as mean ± SD. Significance was set at p < 0.05. RESULTS: UR and SU groups did not differ with respect to sex, age, weight, height, and BMI (all p > 0.37). Individuals cycling in a SU position had a lower VO2 gain compared to individuals cycling in an UR position (9.5 ± 2.2 vs. 12.7 ± 1.2 ml/kg/min, p = 0.001). This was due to a reduced increase in minute ventilation (16 ± 3 vs. 22 ± 4 L/min, p = 0.001) and a blunted decrease in the end tidal fraction of expired oxygen concentration (-0.48 ± 0.95 vs. -1.29 ± 0.56 %, p = 0.031). Tau was not different between SU and UR body positions (49 ± 23 vs. 48 ± 23 sec, p = 0.917). CONCLUSION: The overall gain in VO2 was lower in the SU cycling position; however, tau was similar between body positions. This suggests that individuals cycling in a SU position reach steady state in the same amount of time as individuals cycling in an UR position, despite a lower overall VO2. This is an important consideration when interpreting physiological responses in a SU position. Supported by NSERC Discovery Grant.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.268 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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