Exercise Recovery Oxygen Uptake Kinetics in Comorbid Insomnia and Obstructive Sleep Apnea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Background Delayed recovery following cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) is associated with cardiac morbidity and mortality. Recovery kinetics of oxygen uptake have not been described in people with comorbid obstructive sleep apnea and insomnia (COMISA) who have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease. Our objectives were to (a) describe heart rate recovery (HRR), oxygen recovery slopes ( ), and time to half recovery of (T 1/2 ) following CPET in people with COMISA; and (b) investigate their response to 8 weeks of relaxation control intervention (Relax) or exercise training (Ex) consisting of 3 weekly sessions of individualized aerobic and strength training. Methods Participants with confirmed COMISA underwent maximal exercise testing on a cycle ergometer preintervention (n = 16) and postintervention (Ex: n = 6, Relax: n = 8). HRR and (at minutes 1, 2, and 5) and T 1/2 were calculated during recovery following peak exercise intensity. Results At baseline, HRR at minutes 1, 2, and 5 were 20 ± 7, 35 ± 8, and 49 ± 13 b·min −1 , respectively, while slopes were 0.731 ± 0.521, 0.590 ± 0.288, and 0.222 ± 0.096 L·min −2 , respectively. T 1/2 was 97 ± 64 seconds. Large effect sizes (ESs) of time × group interaction were found for HRR 5 (ηp 2 = 0.232) and 1 (ηp 2 = 0.215) and of group for HRR2 (ηp 2 = 0.275). Conclusion These findings suggest that recovery kinetics of oxygen uptake are delayed in people with COMISA but can improve following exercise training in comparison with a relaxation control intervention. Future studies including additional comparison groups are warranted to characterize more precisely the impact of COMISA on recovery kinetics of oxygen uptake and confirm the benefits of exercise training.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".