ArticlePloS one2023
A computational predictor of the anaerobic mechanical power outputs from a clinical exercise stress test.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We previously were able to predict the anaerobic mechanical power outputs using features taken from a maximal incremental cardiopulmonary exercise stress test (CPET). Since a standard aerobic exercise stress test (with electrocardiogram and blood pressure measurements) has no gas exchange measurement and is more popular than CPET, our goal, in the current paper, was to investigate whether features taken from a clinical exercise stress test (GXT), either submaximal or maximal, can predict the anaerobic mechanical power outputs to the same level as we found with CPET variables. We have used data taken from young healthy subjects undergoing CPET aerobic test and the Wingate anaerobic test, and developed a computational predictive algorithm, based on greedy heuristic multiple linear regression, which enabled the prediction of the anaerobic mechanical power outputs from a corresponding GXT measures (exercise test time, treadmill speed and slope). We found that for submaximal GXT of 85% age predicted HRmax, a combination of 3 and 4 variables produced a correlation of r = 0.93 and r = 0.92 with % error equal to 15 ± 3 and 16 ± 3 on the validation set between real and predicted values of the peak and mean anaerobic mechanical power outputs (p < 0.001), respectively. For maximal GXT (100% of age predicted HRmax), a combination of 4 and 2 variables produced a correlation of r = 0.92 and r = 0.94 with % error equal to 12 ± 2 and 14 ± 3 on the validation set between real and predicted values of the peak and mean anaerobic mechanical power outputs (p < 0.001), respectively. The newly developed model allows to accurately predict the anaerobic mechanical power outputs from a standard, submaximal and maximal GXT. Nevertheless, in the current study the subjects were healthy, normal individuals and therefore the assessment of additional subjects is desirable for the development of a test applicable to other populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.