Oxygen desaturation and adverse events during 6‐min walk testing in patients with <scp>COPD</scp>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The 6-min walk test (6MWT) is a simple test assessing functional capacity, but concerns about risks of substantial oxygen desaturation in pulmonary patients have led to non-adherence to the standardised American Thoracic Society guideline. We evaluated the safety of the 6MWT in stable COPD patients and compared the incidence of adverse events in patients with and without substantial exertional hypoxaemia. METHODS: 6MWT data were obtained for 1136 patients with moderate to very severe COPD. Demographics, adverse events, oxygen saturation (SpO2), 6-min walk distance, lung function and quality of life measures were compared between patients with substantial exertional hypoxaemia (nadir SpO2 < 85%) and those without (SpO2 ≥ 85%). Comparisons were made using Mann-Whitney U-test for continuous variables and Fisher's exact test for categorical variables. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients (2.2%) had adverse events, the most common being dizziness, chest tightness, chest pain and palpitations. Substantial exertional hypoxaemia did not increase the incidence of adverse events. No significant morbidity or mortality was recorded. Patients with adverse events had lower baseline SpO2, worse quality of life scores, and higher depression and anxiety scores. However, no significant differences were seen in anthropometric data, spirometric values or SpO2 during and after the 6MWT. CONCLUSIONS: Asymptomatic exertional hypoxaemia is not associated with an increased incidence of adverse events during 6MWT in COPD patients. Our data support the ATS guideline that the 6MWT should be continued in the absence of symptoms and that intermittent oximetry monitoring does not assist in preventing adverse events.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".