An Incremental Shuttle Walk Test to Estimate Maximal Aerobic Functional Capacity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The goal of the present study was to compare the maximum walking speed and peak oxygen consumption (VO2 peak) obtained during the 6-min walk test (6 MWT) and an incremental shuttle walking test (ISWT) in a trained older population. Methods: A total of 22 older adults (16 female and 6 male) with a group mean age of 70±5.8 yr (range 58 to 79) completed the 6 MWT and ISWT within a 2 wk period. Heart rate (HR) and VO2 peak were measured during each test with a portable metabolic cart (Cosmed, K4B2). The VO2 peak, the maximum walking speed and the total distance walked measured during both tests (6 MWT and ISWT) were compared. Results: A total of 110 recordings for the VO2 peak were obtained and analyzed. Strong correlations were found for the VO2 peak and the walking speed (r=0.91 and r=0.89, respectively, for 6 MWT and ISWT). VO2 peak values obtained with the ISWT were significantly greater (P < 0.05) than with the 6 MWT (21.6 ± 5.3 vs 18.9 ml/kgmin ± 4.5, respectively). There was no difference between sexes. In addition, the maximum heart rate as predicted from age during the ISWT was reached by all participants while it was not during the 6 MWT. Conclusion: Thus, the ISWT appears to a better tool to assess the maximal aerobic functional capacity in older healthy adults based on the higher VO2 peak values obtained in comparison to the 6 MWT.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".