Statement on Exercise Testing in Cystic Fibrosis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This statement summarizes the information available on specific exercise test protocols and outcome parameters used in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) and provides expert consensus recommendations for protocol and performance of exercise tests and basic interpretation of results for clinicians. The conclusions were reached employing consensus meetings and a wide-band Delphi process. Although data on utility are currently limited, standardized exercise testing provides detailed information on physiological health, allows screening for exercise-related adverse reactions and enables exercise counselling. The Godfrey Cycle Ergometer Protocol with monitoring of oxygen saturation and ventilatory gas exchange is recommended for exercise testing in people 10 years and older. Cycle ergometry only with pulse oximetry using the Godfrey protocol or treadmill exercise with pulse oximetry - preferably with measurement of gas exchange - are second best options. Peak oxygen uptake, if assessed, and maximal work rate should be reported as the primary measure of exercise capacity. The final statement was reviewed by the European Cystic Fibrosis society and revised based on the comments received. The document was endorsed by the European Respiratory Society.
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.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 it