Recurrence Quantification Analysis Based Methodology in Automatic Aerobic Threshold Detection: Applicability and Accuracy across Age Groups, Exercise Protocols and Health Conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A new method based on the Recurrence Quantification Analysis (RQA) of the heart rate (HR) offers an objective, efficient alternative to traditional methods for Aerobic Threshold (AerT) identification that have practical limitations due to the complexity of equipment and interpretation. This study aims to validate the RQA-based method’s applicability across varied demographics, exercise protocols, and health status. Data from 123 cardiopulmonary exercise tests were analyzed, and participants were categorized into four groups: athletes, young athletes, obese individuals, and cardiac patients. Each participant’s AerT was assessed using both traditional ventilatory equivalent methods and the automatic RQA-based method. Ordinary Least Products (OLP) regression analysis revealed strong correlations (r > 0.77) between the RQA-based and traditional methods in both oxygen consumption (VO2) and HR at the AerT. Mean percentage differences in HR were below 2.5%, and the Technical Error for HR at AerT was under 8%. The study validates the RQA-based method, directly applied to HR time series, as a reliable tool for the automatic detection of the AerT, demonstrating its accuracy across diverse age groups and fitness levels. These findings suggest a versatile, cost-effective, non-invasive, and objective tool for personalized exercise prescription and health risk stratification, thereby fulfilling the study’s goal of broadening the method’s applicability.
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 | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".