Functional Walk Tests in Individuals With Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Functional walk tests such as the 6- and 12-Minute Walk Test (ie, 6MWT and 12MWT, respectively) are submaximal measures used to determine functional capacity in individuals with compromised ability. The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between these walk tests and measures of exertion (perceived and myocardial), in addition to impairment in individuals with stroke. The relationship among the 6MWT, 12MWT, and the more traditionally assessed measure of self-paced gait speed (generally assessed over a short distance, eg, 10 m) was also evaluated. METHODS: Twenty-five community-dwelling individuals with stroke were evaluated for the following: 12MWT distance, 6MWT distance, self-paced gait speed over 8 m, plantarflexion strength, Berg Balance Scale, Ashworth Scale of Spasticity, and Chedoke-McMaster Stroke Assessment. Heart rate (HR), rate-pressure product (RPP), and perceived exertion were assessed during the functional walk tests. Correlational analysis quantified the relationship between gait, impairment measures, and physiological responses during the functional walk tests. RESULTS: HR reached a steady state after 6 minutes and reflected a moderate exercise intensity of 63% of age-predicted maximum HR. The 6MWT, 12MWT, and self-paced gait speed were all highly correlated with one another (r>0.90) and were all also related to the severity of impairments. The functional walk distances did not relate either to perceived exertion or actual exertion (increase in the myocardial oxygen demand as measured by RPP). CONCLUSIONS: Stroke-specific impairments are the major limitations to the distance walked in individuals with stroke. If the functional walk test is used to assess performance of an individual over time (eg, in response to an intervention), we recommend that both exertion (eg, increase in RPP or HR) and distance be measured.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".