Back

Estimating maximal oxygen consumption from heart rate response to submaximal ramped treadmill test

Gonzales, T. I.; Westgate, K.; Hollidge, S.; Lindsay, T.; Jeon, J.; Brage, S.

2020-02-20 epidemiology
10.1101/2020.02.18.20024489 medRxiv
Show abstract

The Cambridge Ramped Treadmill Test (CRTT) is an incremental, multistage exercise test (I: steady-state walk, II: walk ramped speed, III: walk ramped incline, and IV: run ramped speed on flat). It is typically deployed as a submaximal test with flexible test termination criteria, making it an attractive option for population-based studies of cardiorespiratory fitness. We conducted a study in healthy adults to test the validity of maximal oxygen consumption estimates (VO2 max; ml O2{middle dot}kg-1{middle dot}min-1) predicted from CRTT heart rate response using several methods: a heart rate-to-work rate linear regression method across several test termination criteria, either when a percentage of age-predicted maximal heart rate was achieved (50% through 100%) or at the end of distinct CRTT stages (II, III, and IV); and two single-point walk-test calibration methods using data from either CRTT stage I (low-point method) or stage II (high-point method). For estimates from the linear regression method, prediction bias ranged from -3.0 to -1.6 ml O2{middle dot}kg-1{middle dot}min-1 and Pearsons r ranged from 0.57 to 0.79 for endpoints at percentages of age-predicted maximal heart rate; results were similar for stages III and IV endpoints, but predictions using data only up to stage II had poorer agreement. Agreement was moderate when using the low-point (mean bias: -4.3 ml O2{middle dot}kg-1{middle dot}min-1; Pearsons r: 0.71) and high-point (mean bias: -3.5 ml O2{middle dot}kg-1{middle dot}min-1; Pearsons r: 0.69) methods. Heart rate response to the CRTT can be used to predict VO2max with acceptable validity in common epidemiological scenarios.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.