A Self‐Paced Step Test to Predict Aerobic Fitness in Older Adults in the Primary Care Clinic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To study the potential usefulness of a submaximal self-paced step test as a prediction of maximal aerobic capacity (VO2max) in older adults in the primary care setting. DESIGN: Data were collected during a prospective randomized study of an exercise program. SETTING: Four university family medical clinics in London, Ontario, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: A random sample of 240 healthy older (> or =65) men (n = 118) and women (n = 122) from four family medical clinics underwent self-paced step testing in the clinic with a family physician (n = 16), and step testing and a maximal exercise treadmill test with measurement of respired gases in an exercise laboratory. Testing was done in random order (clinic/laboratory) separated by 2 weeks and then repeated at 52 weeks, following introduction of an exercise program. Relationships between outcome variables were examined by Pearson correlation coefficients while prediction of VO2max was examined using multivariate regression analysis. Cross-validation with 30 age-matched hypertensive and 40 age-matched post-hip arthroplasty patients was used to test the accuracy of the predictive models. MEASUREMENTS: Measured VO2max, predicted VO2max, step test time, step test heart rate, body mass index (BMI), and O2 pulse. RESULTS: Two hundred women (n = 108) and men (n = 92) completed both the initial and 52-week assessments. Stepping time, heart rate, age, BMI, and O2 pulse were strongly associated with VO2max for both a normal and a fast step pace and were chosen to develop the predictive model. Normal step-pace correlation with VO2max (ml/kg/min) was no different (female 0.93: male 0.91) from fast pace (0.95:0.90) with no difference between clinic and laboratory measurement at baseline or 52 weeks. Cross-validation showed no significant difference from the main group using the predictive model. CONCLUSIONS: The self-paced step test is a safe and simple clinical instrument that strongly and reliably predicts VO2max, is sensitive to change, and is generalizable in the family practice setting among community-dwelling older adults differing in fitness and health status.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".