ArticleFrontiers in physiology2025
Comparison of two portable metabolic systems for measuring energy expenditure at rest and during exercise in untrained women.
Article in Frontiers in physiology, 2025. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Portable metabolic systems are used as the "gold standard" for measuring energy expenditure (EE) in the development and validation of wearable devices. This study aimed to compare EE measurements obtained using the COSMED K5 (K5) and CORTEX METAMAX 3B (M3B) during the resting state and submaximal-intensity exercise in women without self-reported regular exercise training. Methods: Twenty women aged 21.4 ± 1.5 years completed two measurements, including resting in a seated position and cycling on a simple upright ergometer at 30 W, 40 W, 50 W, and 60 W. Average EE and other metabolic parameters were compared between K5 and M3B. Differences between K5 and M3B were assessed using the paired-samples t-test, and the effect size was calculated as Cohen's d. Agreement between the two systems was evaluated by calculating Pearson correlation coefficients and visually examining Bland-Altman plots. Results: The number of participants who completed resting and exercise measurements was 18 and 19, respectively. For resting EE, the mean values measured using K5 were 33.4% higher than those measured using M3B ( Conclusion: K5 and M3B show significant differences in EE measurements during rest and exercise among untrained female individuals, indicating systematic bias in EE measurement between the two systems. Thus, careful consideration is essential when interpreting the results of wearable device studies that use different automated metabolic systems.
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.