Test-retest Reproducibility of Constant Rate Step and Shuttle Walk Test for the Assessment of Exertional Dyspnea in patients with COPD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Alternatives for laboratory exercise testing are needed to better reflect symptoms of physical activities of daily living in chronic disease. Such a tool should accurately set the exercise intensity and show good reproducibility. This study examined the reproducibility of constant rate walking (CRWT) and stepping tests (CRST) to assess exertional dyspnea in patients with COPD. Methods: Stable COPD patients (n=43; 65 ± 6.5 yr; FEV1= 49 ± 16% pred.) equipped with a portable Jaeger Oxycon Mobile® metabolic system completed both the CRWT and the CRST. Each test included four 3-min constsant rate stages separated by a 10-min rest period on two occasions separated by 7 to 14 days. For both exercise modalities the selected rates targeted intensities between 25 and 80% VO2 peak for moderately-severe COPD patients. Ventilation (VE) and gas exchange were obtained during the third minute and the Borg dyspnea score at the end of each exercise bout. Results: An equal proportion of patients (35%) completed stage 4 of the CRWT and of the CRST. The test-retest correlation coefficients for dyspnea scores ranged from 0.79 to 0.95 for stages 1 through 4 for theCRWTand from 0.88 to 0.85 for the CRST while those for VE (L·min-1) ranged from 0.95 to 0.98 and 0.91 to 0.95 respectively. Conclusion: These results show both the CRWT and the CRST to be highly reproducible for the assessment of exertional dyspnea in patients with moderate-severe COPD. However, a better linearity in VE and VO2 with exercise stages was seen for the CRST than for the CRWT since patients complied more easily to the imposed external load with stepping than with walking.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".