Maximum exercise capacity: Barcroft revisited in a large population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE In 1973, the first exercise test was performed at McMaster University Medical Center to provide a standardized approach to clinical exercise testing, based on Barcroft’s maxim that the maximum capacity to exercise is “the essence of the machine,” emphasizing integration between different mechanisms. The test was incremental ergometer exercise to symptom limited maximum. Physiologic and symptom measurements were made before and during exercise. 46,288 tests were collected and entered into a dataset; unique both in terms of the large number and the physiologic variables collected (skeletal muscle strength, gas transfer capacity, symptoms).OBJECTIVES The objective of this study was to understand CO2 production in relation to oxygen uptake when exercising to maximum capacity.MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS Physiologic factors contributing to maximum exercise capacity (Wmax) were skeletal muscle strength, FEV1 (ventilatory capacity) and DLCO (gas transfer capacity). The response of VCO2 in relation to VO2 (RER) showed a lag in CO2 production (related to CO2 storage), which was longer in subjects with higher maximum exercise capacity. This lag was followed by a progressive increase toward Wmax that reached a maximum value independent of Wmax. The perceived intensity of leg effort and dyspnea increased in a positively accelerating manner in parallel with increases in CO2 output.CONCLUSION Maximum power in incremental cycling was symptom limited, dependent on muscle (strength, oxidative capacity), together with FEV1. Previous emphasis on oxygen delivery as limiting exercise, irrespective of clinical diagnosis, may be augmented by the perceptual limitation that accompanies, remarkably symmetrically, the adaptation to CO2 removal maintaining homeostasis in muscle (muscle buffering capacity).
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 | 0.015 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".