Current Resting Metabolic Rate Prediction Equations Lack Sensitivity and Specificity to Indicate Relative Energy Deficiency in Sport: A Large Cohort Study in Elite Athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Measured resting metabolic rate (RMR) was compared to predicted RMR equations (RMRratio) to see whether a low RMRratio relates to the Relative Energy Deficiency in Sport (REDs) Clinical Assessment Tool 2 (CAT2) severity/risk score. METHODS: Female (n = 127) and male (n = 53) athletes (performance Tiers 3-5) were assigned green/yellow/orange/red light according to CAT2. RMR and submaximal exercise energy expenditure (via cycle ergometer) were assessed fasted on the same morning via indirect calorimetry. Low RMR was defined as RMRratio < 0.90, with 11 RMR prediction equations tested for sensitivity, specificity, and predictive validity against the CAT2. RESULTS: RMRratio (Cunningham) was only lower in red versus green light (0.90 ± 0.07 vs. 0.99 ± 0.10; p = .023; but RMRratio was only low in 44% of red light athletes). The prevalence of low RMRratio ranged from 1% (Owen equation) to 68% (van Hooren equation) despite the overall prevalence of REDs being 46%. As a diagnostic (no REDs [green] vs. REDs [yellow + orange + red]), Cunningham equation reported sensitivity (true positives) of 0.77 at RMRratio of 1.00 and specificity (true negatives) of 1.00 at RMRratio of 0.70. Exercise energy expenditure was significantly lower in green versus orange (0.131 ± 0.013 vs. 0.142 ± 0.008 kcal·kg fat-free mass-1·min-1; p < .001) but was greater in red (0.127 ± 0.011) versus orange. CONCLUSION: Interpretation of RMRratio is radically impacted by choice of prediction equation. Although there may be some utility in cross-sectionally detecting extreme REDs cases (red light) via RMRratio, more research with a focus on sport/phenotype-specific prediction equations and varying risk thresholds is required to strengthen the validity and reliability of RMR as a part of REDs diagnostics.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".