MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388672004 · doi:10.1249/mss.0000000000003339

Supramaximal Testing to Confirm the Achievement of VO2max in Acute Hypoxia

2023· article· en· W4388672004 on OpenAlexaff
Benjamin P. Thompson, Connor J. Doherty, Leah M. Mann, Jou‐Chung Chang, Sarah A. Angus, Glen E. Foster, Jason S. Au, Paolo B. Dominelli

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHigh Altitude and Hypoxia
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHypoxia (environmental)Incremental exerciseVO2 maxInternal medicineMedicineCardiologyOxygenationExercise physiologyCycle ergometerHeart rateOxygenChemistryBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT To confirm maximal oxygen uptake (V̇O 2max ), a bout of supramaximal exercise can be performed after maximal exercise. Supramaximal exercise verifies V̇O 2max if the V̇O 2max is similar to the incremental test. Acute hypoxia decreases V̇O 2max because of decreases in arterial oxygenation, which results in different determinants of V̇O 2max . Purpose We sought to determine if supramaximal exercise testing confirms the achievement of V̇O 2max in acute hypoxia. We hypothesized that the incremental and supramaximal V̇O 2 will be sufficiently similar in acute hypoxia. Methods Twenty-one healthy adults (males n = 13, females n = 8) completed incremental and supramaximal exercise tests in normoxia and acute hypoxia (fraction inspired oxygen = 0.14) separated by at least 48 h. Incremental exercise started at 80 and 60 W in normoxia and 40 and 20 W in hypoxia for males and females, respectively, with all increasing by 20 W each minute until volitional exhaustion. After a 20-min postexercise rest period, a supramaximal test at 110% peak power until volitional exhaustion was completed. Results Supramaximal exercise testing yielded a lower V̇O 2 than incremental testing in hypoxia (3.11 ± 0.78 vs 3.21 ± 0.83 L·min −1 , P = 0.001) and normoxia (3.71 ± 0.91 vs 3.80 ± 1.02 L·min −1 , P = 0.01). Incremental and supramaximal V̇O 2 were statistically similar, using investigator-determined equivalence bounds ±150 mL·min −1 , in hypoxia ( P = 0.02, 90% confidence interval [CI] = 0.05–0.14) and normoxia ( P = 0.03, 90% CI = 0.01–0.14). Likewise, using ±2.1 mL·kg −1 ·min −1 bounds, incremental and supramaximal V̇O 2 values were statistically similar in hypoxia ( P = 0.04, 90% CI = 0.70–2.0) and normoxia ( P = 0.04, 90% CI = 0.30–2.0). Conclusions Despite differences in the oxygen cascade, incremental and supramaximal V̇O 2 values were statistically similar in both hypoxia and normoxia, demonstrating the utility of supramaximal verification of V̇O 2max in the setting of acute hypoxia.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

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)0.0030.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & ExerciseSame topicHigh Altitude and HypoxiaFrench-language works237,207