MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6902066289 · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.14945044

Additional file 1 of The effects of dietary nitrate supplementation on endurance exercise performance and cardiorespiratory measures in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021· article· en· W6902066289 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMuscle metabolism and nutrition
Canadian institutionsPopulation Health Research InstituteUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of GuelphWestern UniversityMcMaster UniversityQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConfidence intervalPlot (graphics)Forest plotMeta-analysisCardiorespiratory fitnessMean differenceNitrate

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Additional file 1: Supplemental Figure 1. Forest plot for rating of perceived exertion for nitrate supplementation versus placebo. Square markers represent mean difference for individual studies, with square size proportional to the weight given to each study in the meta-analysis. Horizontal lines indicate 95% confidence intervals (CI). The solid diamond represents the estimated 95% confidence interval for effect size of all meta-analyzed data. Supplemental Figure 2. Forest plot for time trial performance of nitrate supplementation versus placebo. Square markers represent mean difference for individual studies, with square size proportional to the weight given to each study in the meta-analysis. Horizontal lines indicate 95% confidence intervals (CI). The solid diamond represents the estimated 95% confidence interval for effect size of all meta-analyzed data. Supplemental Figure 3. Forest plot for work done of nitrate supplementation versus placebo. Square markers represent mean difference for individual studies, with square size proportional to the weight given to each study in the meta-analysis. Horizontal lines indicate 95% confidence intervals (CI). The solid diamond represents the estimated 95% confidence interval for effect size of all meta-analyzed data. Supplemental Figure 4. Forest plot of blood lactate levels with nitrate supplementation versus placebo. Square markers represent mean difference for individual studies, with square size proportional to the weight given to each study in the meta-analysis. Horizontal lines indicate 95% confidence intervals (CI). The solid diamond represents the estimated 95% confidence interval for effect size of all meta-analyzed data. Supplemental Figure 5. Forest plot with subgroup analysis of VO2 with nitrate supplementation versus placebo, based on athletic level. Square markers represent mean difference for individual studies, with square size proportional to the weight given to each study in the meta-analysis. Horizontal lines indicate 95% confidence intervals (CI). The solid diamond represents the estimated 95% confidence interval for effect size of all meta-analyzed data.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.059
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.800
Threshold uncertainty score0.285

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.059
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0050.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.8000.037

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.222 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshare→Same topicMuscle metabolism and nutrition→French-language works237,207→