MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415230761 · doi:10.1113/ep092580

Physiology and the Olympics

2025· editorial· en· W4415230761 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Toby Mündel

Bibliographic record

VenueExperimental Physiology · 2025
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsBrock University
FundersBrock UniversityCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsPremiseFootballAthletesSubject matterSports medicineExercise physiologyMythologySubject (documents)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Physiology plays a key role in understanding and optimizing human physical performance.For many athletes, the Olympic Games remain the pinnacle of achievement.Beyond public interest and return on (state) investment, studying the physiology of athletes provides a unique insight into the capabilities of the various systems (e.g., muscular, cardio-and cerebrovascular, respiratory) that can support basic and clinical research.This was the premise upon which a call was made for the current Special Issue on 'Physiology and the Olympics' , focused on advancing our physiological understanding of the science behind preparation for, competition in, and recovery from human performance.This call was answered comprehensively: (1) 18 papers in total, whose corresponding authors span nine countries (Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Poland, UK and USA); (2) article categories including Myths and Methodologies (1), Short Communication (1), Case Reports (3), Reviews (4) and Research Articles (8); (3) subject areas that embrace Cardiovascular Control, Endocrinology and Metabolism, Environmental and Exercise, Muscle and Neuroscience; and (4) athlete (participant) categories that comprise cycling, running, jumping, throwing, swimming, football (soccer), sailing, alpine skiing, kayaking, weight-and power-lifting, CrossFit, esports, speed-skating, skeleton, biathlon, triathlon and decathlon.No matter your interest, this Special Issue has something to whet your physiological appetite! 2 AEROBIC CAPACITY AND PREDICTION OF PERFORMANCE A case report by Zubac et al. (2025) provided a retrospective analysis of world-class Laser Standard sailors through cardiopulmonary exercise testing.These sailors are renowned for their agile 'hiking' skills, whereby quasi-isometric bilateral and multi-joint movements account for up to 90% of the upwind time, strongly relate to neuromuscular fatigue and play a pivotal role in sailing performance.They report that well-balanced aerobic power is vital for superior sailing performance, whilst oxygen pulse measures over 6 years were noted not to change, indicative of compensatory cardiovascular mechanisms.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.003

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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 routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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