MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401409725 · doi:10.1139/apnm-2024-0060

Variability of cardiopulmonary exercise testing in patients with atrial fibrillation and determination of exercise responders to high-intensity interval training and moderate-to-vigorous intensity continuous training

2024· article· en· W4401409725 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Tasuku Terada, Daniel A. Keir, Juan M. Murias, Sol Vidal‐Almela, John Buckley, Jennifer L. Reed

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Physiology Nutrition and Metabolism · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Effects of Exercise
Canadian institutionsLawson Health Research InstituteWestern UniversitySt Joseph's Health CareUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInterval trainingExercise prescriptionIntraclass correlationCardiologyPhysical therapyHigh-intensity interval trainingInternal medicineAtrial fibrillationVO2 maxHeart rateVentilatory thresholdBody mass indexConfidence intervalBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Disabling atrial fibrillation (AF)-related symptoms and different testing settings may influence day-to-day cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) measurements, which can affect exercise prescription for high-intensity interval training (HIIT) and moderate-to-vigorous intensity continuous training (M-VICT) and their outcomes. This study examined the reliability of CPET in patients with AF and assessed the proportion of participants achieving minimal detectable changes (MDC) in peak oxygen consumption (V̇O2peak) following HIIT and M-VICT. Participants were randomized into HIIT or M-VICT after completing two baseline CPETs: one with cardiac stress technologists (CPETdiag) and the other with a research team of exercise specialists (CPETresearch). Additional CPET was completed following 12 weeks of twice-weekly training. The reliability of CPETdiag and CPETresearch was assessed by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and dependent t tests. The MDC score was calculated for V̇O2peak using a reliable change index. The proportion of participants achieving MDC was compared between HIIT and M-VICT using chi-square analysis. Eighteen participants (69 ± 7 years, 33% females) completed two baseline CPETs. The ICCs were significant for all measured variables. However, peak power output (POpeak: 124 ± 40 vs. 148 ± 40 watts, p < 0.001) and HR (HRpeak: 136 ± 22 vs. 148 ± 30 bpm, p = 0.023) were significantly greater in CPETresearch than CPETdiag. Few participants achieved MDC in V̇O2peak (5.6 mL/kg/min) with no difference between HIIT (0%) and M-VICT (10.0%, p = 0.244). POpeak and HRpeak differed significantly in patients with AF when CPETs were repeated under different settings. Caution must be practised when prescribing exercise intensity based on these measures as under-prescription may increase the number of exercise non-responders.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
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 integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Physiology Nutrition and MetabolismSame topicCardiovascular Effects of ExerciseFrench-language works237,207