ArticleScientific reports2024
Evaluating the effectiveness of quantitative pupillometry in assessing dynamic aerobic training intensity.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Sports injuries often arise from improper scheduling of exercise loads, and timely assessment of these loads is essential for minimizing injury risk. This article investigates the validity of using changes in pupillary light reflex (PLR) during dynamic aerobic training as a novel approach to evaluating exercise load. Dynamic aerobic training was conducted on a power bicycle for 15 min. With a 3-minute interval as the demarcation line, PLR measurement was performed before training and heart rate was recorded throughout the process. The Rating of Perceived Exertion (RPE) scale invented by Borg was used for scoring before training and after training. The normal distribution of data was confirmed through the Shapiro-Wilk test. Pearson correlation analysis was used to quantify the correlation between variables. The Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve and the area under the curve (AUC) analysis were used to determine the indicators of exercise load. The optimal threshold of the indicators was calculated through the Youden index to evaluate sensitivity and specificity. Thirty male second-tier athletes with a mean age of 23.66 ± 2.21 years, a mean height of 175.3 ± 6.5 cm, and a mean weight of 68.99 ± 10.35 kg participated in this study. Based on the RPE scale results, it was confirmed that the 15-minute dynamic aerobic exercise successfully elicited varying levels of perceived exertion among the athletes. The findings of this study indicate significant changes in PLR and heart rate (HR) with increasing exercise duration and external load. There were strong correlations between RPE and maximum constriction velocity (MCV) (|r| = 0.8309, p < 0.001, negative correlation), maximum diameter (INIT) (r = 0.7641, p < 0.001, positive correlation), time to reach 75% recovery (T75) (|r| = 0.7289, p < 0.001, negative correlation), and HR (r = 0.8170, p < 0.001, positive correlation). Additionally, the results suggest that MCV is the most significant potential indicator for detecting internal load, exhibiting high specificity and sensitivity (AUC = 0.8509, p < 0.001). Further analysis using the Youden index identified 5.07 mm/s as the optimal cutoff value for MCV, indicating that when MCV ≤ 5.07 mm/s, the athletes' internal load has reached an "Intense" state. PLR may be a potential indicator for assessing internal load Further investigation could involve developing a non-invasive exercise load detection system based on pupillary variable indicators, providing a valuable new approach for accurately measuring exercise load.
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.