ArticleEuropean journal of applied physiology2020
A regression method for the power-duration relationship when both variables are subject to error.
Article in European journal of applied physiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Power profiling and the power-duration relationship in cycling: a narrative review.European journal of applied physiology · 2022Review
- Critical speed estimated by statistically appropriate fitting procedures.European journal of applied physiology · 2021Article
- Effect of Mathematical Modeling and Fitting Procedures on the Assessment of Critical Speed and Its Relationship With Aerobic Fitness Parameters.Frontiers in physiology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe power-duration relationship has been variously modelled, although duration must be acknowledged as the dependent variable and is supposed to represent the only source of experimental error. However, there are certain situations, namely extremely high power outputs or outdoor field conditions, in which the error in power output measurement may not remain negligible. The geometric mean (GM) regression method deals with the assumption that also the independent variable is subject to a certain amount of experimental error, but has never been utilized in this context.
methodsWe applied the GM regression method for the two- and three-parameter critical power models and tested it against the usual weighted least square (WLS) procedure with our previous published data.
resultsThere were no significant differences between parameter estimates of WLS and GM. Bias and limit of agreements between the two methods were low, while correlation coefficients were high (0.85-1.00).
conclusionsGM provided equivalent results with respect to WLS in fitting the critical power model to experimental data and for its conceptual characteristics must be preferred wherever concerns on the precision of P measurement are present, such as for in-field power meters.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32078033What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.