ArticleEuropean journal of applied physiology2026
From diagnostics to prediction: development and validation of a multi-domain power-duration model.
Article in European journal of applied physiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Maximal glycolytic flux modulates metabolic thresholds independent of maximal oxygen uptake.European journal of applied physiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeCurrent models of the power-duration relationship often focus on limited time domains. This study aims to develop and validate a Multi-Domain Power-Duration model (MuDo-PD) to predict power outputs across a wide range of exercise duration (up to 60 min) in cycling, using peak power output (PPO), maximal aerobic power (MAP), and power at lactate threshold 2 (PLT2).
methodsThirty-three well-trained male cyclists (29.2 ± 9.7 yrs; V̇O₂max: 67.2 ± 5.1 mL·min⁻¹·kg⁻¹) performed lab tests to determine PPO (15-s sprint), MAP (ramp test), and PLT2, and completed time trials from 30 to 3600 s. Based on the resulting power-duration profiles and three anchor points (PPO, MAP, PLT2), individual exponential time decay constants (k) were calculated for short (1–300 s; Anaerobic Power Reserve, kAnPR) and long durations (300–3600 s; Aerobic Power Reserve, kAePR), forming the basis of the MuDo-PD model. Internal validation was performed within the modeling cohort by comparing the MuDo-PD to an established critical power approach (OmPD). External validation involved predicting the target power output during a time-to-exhaustion trial in an independent sample of 75 well-trained athletes.
resultsDecay constants were kAnPR = -0.023 ± 0.003 s− 1 and kAePR = -0.0023 ± 0.0008 s− 1. The MuDo-PD model showed moderate to excellent agreement with actual power (ICC = 0.63–0.95; RSE = 29 ± 9 W), comparable to OmPD (ICC = 0.80–0.98, RSE = 19 ± 7 W). External validation confirmed excellent accuracy of MuDo-PD (ICC = 0.988; bias = 0.01 ± 17.8 W).
conclusionThe MuDo-PD model enables performance prediction across intensity domains up to 60 min using laboratory diagnostic parameters, offering a practical tool for performance assessment and training control.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.