MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387472863 · doi:10.1519/jsc.0000000000004597

Combining Near-Infrared Spectroscopy and Heart Rate Variability Derived Thresholds to Estimate the Critical Intensity of Exercise

2023· article· en· W4387472863 on OpenAlexaff
Pablo R. Fleitas‐Paniagua, Rafael de Almeida Azevedo, Mackenzie Trpcic, Juan M. Murias, Bruce Rogers

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic Control
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeart rateExercise intensityIntensity (physics)Heart rate variabilityCardiologyInternal medicineRespiratory compensationDetrended fluctuation analysisChemistryMathematicsMedicineBlood pressurePhysical therapyPhysicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT: Fleitas-Paniagua, PR, de Almeida Azevedo, R, Trpcic, M, Murias, JM, and Rogers, B. Combining near-infrared spectroscopy and heart rate variability derived thresholds to estimate the critical intensity of exercise. J Strength Cond Res 38(1): e16-e24, 2024-Critical intensity determination often requires costly tools and several testing sessions. Alternative approaches display relatively large individual variation. Therefore, simpler estimations with improved precision are needed. This study evaluated whether averaging the heart rate (HR) and oxygen uptake (V̇O 2 ) responses associated with the muscle deoxyhemoglobin concentration breakpoint ([HHb] BP ) and the heart rate variability (HRV) given by the detrended fluctuation analysis second threshold (HRVT2) during ramp incremental (RI) test improved the accuracy of identifying the HR and V̇O 2 at the respiratory compensation point (RCP). Ten female and 11 male recreationally trained subjects performed a 15 W·minute -1 RI test. Gas exchange, near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS), and RR interval were recorded to assess the RCP, [HHb] BP , and HRVT2. Heart rate (mean ± SD : 158 ± 14, 156 ± 13, 160 ± 14 and, 158 ± 12 bpm) and V̇O 2 (3.08 ± 0.69, 2.98 ± 0.58, 3.06 ± 0.65, and 3.02 ± 0.60 L·minute -1 ) at the RCP, [HHb] BP , HRVT2, and HRVT2&[HHb] BP average (H&H Av ), respectively, were not significantly different ( p > 0.05). The linear relationship between H&H Av and RCP was higher compared with the relationship between [HHb] BP vs RCP and HRVT2 vs RCP for both HR ( r = 0.85; r = 0.73; r = 0.79, p > 0.05) and V̇O 2 ( r = 0.94; r = 0.93; r = 0.91, p > 0.05). Intraclass correlation between RCP, [HHb] BP , HRVT2, and H&H AV was 0.93 for V̇O 2 and 0.79 for HR. The [HHb] BP and the HRVT2 independently provided V̇O 2 and HR responses that strongly agreed with those at the RCP. Combining [HHb] BP and the HRVT2 resulted in estimations of the V̇O 2 and HR at the RCP that displayed smaller variability compared with each modality alone.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.840
Threshold uncertainty score0.448

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.348 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations11
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Strength and Conditioning ResearchSame topicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic ControlFrench-language works237,207