Heart Rate Variability Thresholds: Agreement with Established Approaches and Reproducibility in Trained Females and Males
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine in trained females and males i) the agreement between the gas exchange threshold (GET), lactate threshold 1 (LT1), and heart rate variability threshold 1 (HRVT1), as well as between the respiratory compensation point (RCP), lactate threshold 2 (LT2), and heart rate variability threshold 2 (HRVT2), and ii) the reproducibility of HRVT1 and HRVT2 during 2-min incremental step protocols. METHODS: Fifty-seven trained participants (24 females) completed a 2-min step incremental test to task failure. Nineteen participants (eight females) completed a second test to evaluate reproducibility. Gas exchange and ventilatory responses, blood lactate concentration, and RR time series were recorded to assess the oxygen consumption (V̇O 2 ) and heart rate (HR) associated with the GET, RCP, LT1, LT2, HRVT1, and HRVT2. RESULTS: V̇O 2 -GET versus V̇O 2 -HRVT1 and HR-GET versus HR-HRVT1 were statistically different for females (29.5 ± 4.0 vs 34.6 ± 6.1 mL·kg -1 ·min -1 ; 154 ± 11 vs 166 ± 12 bpm) and for males (33.9 ± 4.2 vs 42.7 ± 4.6 mL·kg -1 ·min -1 ; 145 ± 11 vs 165 ± 9 bpm; P < 0.001). V̇O 2 and HR at HRVT1 were greater than at LT1 ( P < 0.05). V̇O 2 -RCP versus V̇O 2 -HRVT2 and HR-RCP versus HR-HRVT2 were not statistically different for females (40.1 ± 4.7 vs 39.5 ± 6.7 mL·kg -1 ·min -1 ; 177 ± 9 vs 176 ± 9 bpm) and males (48.4 ± 5.4 vs 47.8 ± 4.8 mL·kg -1 ·min -1 ; 176 ± 8 vs 175 ± 9 bpm; P > 0.05). V̇O 2 and HR responses at LT2 were similar to HRVT2 ( P > 0.05). Intraclass correlation coefficient for V̇O 2 -HRVT1, HR-HRVT1, V̇O 2 -HRVT2, and HR-HRVT2 indicated good reproducibility when comparing the two different time points to standard methods. CONCLUSIONS: Whereas HRVT2 is a valid and reproducible estimate of the RCP/LT2, current approaches for HRVT1 estimation did not show good agreement with outcomes at GET and LT1.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".