Development of a Constant Rate Step Test to Assess Exertional Dyspnea in the Primary Care Setting in Patients with COPD Ashley Rycroft
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: There is a need to develop a field test to evaluate exertional dyspnea in the primary care setting. This study examined the applicability of a 3-minute constant rate step test in patients with COPD. Methods: This test involved 4 stepping rates (18, 22, 26, 32 steps.min-1) equivalent to approximately 4.5, 5.3, 6.0, and 7.2 MET with the ultimate goal that in its final development, the assessment will be made a single stepping rate based on disease severity. Stable COPD patients (N= 43; 65 ± 6.5 years; FEV1= 49 ± 16% pred.; SpO2 (%) rest: 95± 2) were equipped with a portable Jaeger Oxycon Mobile® metabolic system and followed an audio signal for stepping up and down a single 20 cm step for 3 minutes. Borg dyspnea scores were obtained at the end each stepping bout. A 10-min rest was given between each stepping bout. Results: O f the 43 patients, 80% completed stages 1 and 2, 74 and 37% stages 3 and 4 while no patient of MRC class 4 or 5 (n=8) completed stage 1. Breathing frequency (breaths.min-1) spanned from 26.5± 4.1 to 39.0±6.4 but VT (L) remained unchanged (1.4± 0.3 vs. 1.5±0.4) from stage 1 to 4 while Borg scores were 3 ± 1, 4 ± 1, 5 ± 2, 6 ± 3 respectively and SpO2 (%) were 92±5, 91±4, 91±4 and 90±4. Conclusions: Preliminary findings indicate that a 3-min constant rate step test may present a feasible alternative to laboratory testing to assess exertional dyspnea in moderately severe COPD. In this population, a stepping rate of 26 steps·min-1 could be sustained by the majority of patients while producing a level of dyspnea potentially amenable to therapy.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".