Cited by 118

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Validity of inspiratory and expiratory methods of measuring gas exchange with a computerized system

Bassett, David R., Howley, Edward T., Thompson, Dixie L., King, George A., Strath, Scott J., McLaughlin, James E., Parr, Brian B.·2001·Journal of Applied Physiology

Abstract

The accuracy of a computerized metabolic system, using inspiratory and expiratory methods of measuring ventilation, was assessed in eight male subjects. Gas exchange was measured at rest and during five stages on a cycle ergometer. Pneumotachometers were placed on the inspired and expired side to measure inspired (V˙i) and expired ventilation (V˙e). The devices were connected to two systems sampling expired O 2 and CO 2 from a single mixing chamber. Simultaneously, the criterion (Douglas bag, or DB) method assessed V˙e and fractions of O 2 and CO 2 in expired gas (Fe O 2 and Fe CO 2 ) for subsequent calculation of O 2 uptake (V˙o 2 ), CO 2 production (V˙co 2 ), and respiratory exchange ratio. Both systems accurately measured metabolic variables over a wide range of intensities. Though differences were found between the DB and computerized systems for Fe O 2 (both inspired and expired systems), Fe CO 2 (expired system only), andV˙o 2 (inspired system only), the differences were extremely small (Fe O 2 = 0.0004, Fe CO 2 = −0.0003,V˙o 2 = −0.018 l/min). Thus a computerized system, using inspiratory or expiratory configurations, permits extremely precise measurements to be made in a less time-consuming manner than the DB technique.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1152/jappl.2001.91.1.218

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Rigorous validation of the Parvomedics TrueOne system by several groups of investigators indicated the accuracy of this system all but equals that of the gold standard Douglas bag method.

    “Third, the rigorous validation of the Parvomedics TrueOne system by several groups of investigators indicated the accuracy of this system all but equals that of the gold standard Douglas bag method (34, 35) in keeping with our original data here.”

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 17

  1. 10.1080/02701367.1985.10608441 · DOI
  2. 10.1152/jappl.1972.32.2.155 · DOI
  3. 10.1055/s-2007-971135 · DOI
  4. 10.1249/00005768-199512000-00007 · DOI
  5. 10.1007/BF00618499 · DOI
  6. 10.1249/00005768-199303000-00016 · DOI
  7. 10.1152/jappl.1994.77.6.2659 · DOI
  8. Powers SK, 1987, Aviat Space Environ Med, 58, 323
  9. Scholander PF., 1947, J Biol Chem, 167, 235, 10.1016/S0021-9258(17)35161-X · DOI
  10. 10.1139/h94-039 · DOI
  11. 10.1055/s-2007-1024884 · DOI
  12. 10.1097/00005768-199604000-00017 · DOI
  13. 10.1152/jappl.1973.35.1.85 · DOI
  14. 10.1152/jappl.1974.36.5.618 · DOI
  15. 10.1152/jappl.1976.40.4.619 · DOI
  16. 10.1152/jappl.1987.63.3.1289 · DOI
  17. 10.1152/jappl.1982.53.1.280 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Bassett, D. R., Howley, E. T., Thompson, D. L., King, G. A., Strath, S. J., McLaughlin, J. E., & Parr, B. B.
Venue
Journal of Applied Physiology
Published
2001-07-01
Volume
91
Issue
1
Pages
218-224
ISSN
  • 8750-7587
  • 1522-1601
Cited by
118
References
1
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review