Peak VO<sub>2</sub> during handcycling in spinal cord injured athletes: incremental versus verification testing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study aimed to compare peak oxygen uptake (V̇O2peak), peak heart rate (HRpeak), and peak O2pulse during an incremental and a verification test performed on the same day in hand-cyclists with spinal cord injury (SCI). Eight competitive SCI hand-cyclists (age: 23 ± 2.7 years; V̇O2peak: 36.3 ± 14.0 mL.kg−1.min−1) performed a maximal incremental handcycling test and a verification test to exhaustion at 100% of the peak speed on an oversized treadmill. The V̇O2peak, HRpeak, and peak O2pulse (i.e., VO2/HR) were compared between incremental and verification tests. Absolute and relative V̇O2peak obtained in the verification test (2.51 ± 0.96 L.min−1; 36.3 ± 14.0 mL.kg.min−1) were significantly higher than values obtained in the incremental test (2.24 ± 0.79 L.min−1; 33.5 ± 12.9 mL.kg.min−1; P < 0.05). The mean differences (95% CL) of absolute and relative V̇O2peak between tests were 8.2% (3.3%–13.2%) and 10.9% (4.3%–18.1%), respectively. There was no difference in HR peak (incremental: 169 ± 24 bpm; verification 167 ± 25 bpm; P = 0.130). Peak O2pulse from the verification test (14.6 ± 4.7 mL.beat−1) was higher than incremental test (13.0 ± 3.8 mL.beat−1; P = 0.007). In conclusion, the verification test elicited greater V̇O2peak and O2pulse than a two-phase incremental test despite the similar HRpeak. This indicates that for this progressive protocol lasting ≥25 min, the verification phase adds value to determining V̇O2peak in SCI athletes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".