MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414240672 · doi:10.3390/sports13090330

Examining the Exercise Dose–Response Using Cardiac Autonomic Activity in Female University Ice Hockey Players

2025· article· en· W4414240672 on OpenAlexaff
Marnie L. Peterson, Patrick E. Monforton, Anthony R. Bain, Kevin Milne, Andrew S. Perrotta

Bibliographic record

VenueSports · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic Control
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIce hockeyHeart rateHeart rate variabilityAutonomic nervous systemExercise physiologySports medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Female university ice hockey players experience elevated and sustained cardiovascular stress during training and competition. There remains limited research on the “exercise dose–response” in female ice hockey players. The purpose of this study was to examine daily and weekly changes in cardiac autonomic activity across a competitive season, and to examine its association with accumulated exercise stress. Twenty-one female ice hockey players wore chest strap heart rate monitors to quantify exercise heart rate dynamics into a training load (TL) metric and time (min) performing high-intensity activity (HIA) during training and competition. Cardiac autonomic activity was expressed as both resting heart rate (RHR) and the root mean squared of successive R-R intervals (rMSSD) and was recorded immediately upon awakening each morning. The association between HRV and both TL (r = −0.420, p = 0.058) and HIA (r = −0.420, p = 0.058) was observed. The association between RHR and both TL (r = 0.109, p = 0.638) and HIA (r = 0.150, p = 0.516) was observed. rMSSD fell below the typical error for ~50% of games. In conclusion, HRV demonstrated greater sensitivity to exercise stress than RHR for quantifying the dose–response to on-ice exercise stress.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.262
Threshold uncertainty score0.480

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSportsSame topicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic ControlFrench-language works237,207