ArticleFrontiers in physiology2026
A theoretical framework for predicting altitude effects on physical employment standard evaluation performance.
Article in Frontiers in physiology, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Physical employment standard (PES) evaluations assess whether personnel meet an occupation's minimum physical requirements, supporting operational readiness. Because altitude lowers aerobic capacity, comparability across testing sites at different elevations may require altitude-specific scoring adjustments for aerobic-dominant components. To encourage future efforts to address this, the purpose of this paper is to propose a framework that uses altitude effects observed in existing empirical research to predict altitude effects on PES evaluation performance. No new empirical data are presented; the framework draws on existing altitude-performance literature. We translate altitude effects to PES evaluation performance using four determinants: duration, intensity relative to critical power (CP), work-recovery structure and expected aerobic contribution. The predictions from the framework are expressed as additional completion time at altitude (Δt) and as altitude-specific equivalent cut-scores for a representative aerobic-dominant component with a 360 s sea-level reference, with 7-10% per 1,000 m sensitivity bands above ~1,500 m provided as continuous options. Because aerobic metabolism takes time to dominate an effort, predicted altitude effects scale with task duration: minimal for efforts under 2 min, moderate at 2.5-5 min, and largest at 7.5-10 min. Intermittent work is incorporated using CP and finite work capacity above CP (W'), with W' reconstitution slowed at altitude so that short bouts with incomplete recovery accumulate fatigue more rapidly than at sea level; full parameter values are reported in the methods. A validation roadmap is outlined that includes within-participant estimation of CP, W', and recovery kinetics at altitude, translation to PES component demands, and prospective comparison of altitude-specific versus fixed cut-scores under defined exposure timeframes. Such a framework is essential to preserve comparability of PES evaluation outcomes across locations, support defensible decisions based on PES evaluation results, and maintain operational readiness when critical tasks must be performed in hypoxic environments.
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.