MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408688560 · doi:10.1113/ep092337

Development of a standardized single‐session cardiopulmonary exercise test for combined assessment of peak oxygen uptake and on/off‐kinetics

2025· article· en· W4408688560 on OpenAlexafffund
Jefferson Lima de Santana, Till Enzner, Britney Blunderfield, Asher A. Mendelson, Rodrigo Villar

Bibliographic record

VenueExperimental Physiology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersManitoba Medical Service Foundation
KeywordsCycle ergometerVO2 maxIntensity (physics)PhysicsWork rateHeart rateMedicineStatisticsCardiologyAtomic physicsMathematicsInternal medicineBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Peak oxygen uptake () and on/off‐kinetics are key indicators of exercise capacity and health outcomes, but their assessment often requires separate laboratory visits, which limits feasibility. This cross‐sectional study aimed to develop a single cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET) for both assessments. We designed a single‐session combined CPET protocol using an upright cycle ergometer in healthy volunteers ( n = 20). was first estimated using an a priori formula. The constant work rate (CWR) part of the test (on‐kinetics) was set to an intensity of 30% . After an incremental test to measure , a 10‐min recovery period was used to evaluate off‐kinetics. Twenty volunteers (9 females and 11 males), 28.0 ± 8.1 years completed the protocol. No significant differences were found between predicted and measured ( P = 0.47). A strong correlation ( r = 0.88) and good agreement (Bland–Altman bias = −0.82 mL kg −1 min −1 ) were found between the calculated/actual individuals’ 30% (mL kg −1 min −1 ) and the measured steady‐state at CWR. The measured exercise intensity at CWR closely matched the target of 30%, with no statistical differences, with an average difference of 0.2 percentage points. Small–medium Cohen's d (0.16) indicated high similarity between predicted and measured . on‐ and off‐kinetics analyses were also performed for all participants with mono‐exponential fittings. A single‐session protocol for the combined assessment of and on/off‐kinetics was developed. This protocol will enable greater recruitment and participation in research and enhanced detail for clinical CPET use. Future research should evaluate intra‐ and inter‐participant reproducibility over repeated sessions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.164
Threshold uncertainty score0.851

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExperimental PhysiologySame topicCardiovascular and exercise physiologyFrench-language works237,207