Reference values for the 6‐min walk test in healthy children aged 6–12 years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To establish reference values for the 6-min walk test in healthy children and adolescents aged 6-12 years. METHODS: This cross-sectional, prospective study selected healthy children and adolescents aged 6-12 years, at three elementary schools in Porto Alegre. The anthropometric data of all the individuals were evaluated and two 6-min walk tests were performed. Based on this, a reference equation was generated, and the test reproducibility was evaluated. RESULTS: One hundred eighty-eight children (92 boys) performed the test. Pearson correlation showed that age (r = 0.51), height (r = 0.49), difference in heart rate before and after the test (dif. HR) (r = 0.30), and weight (r = 0.29) were significantly correlated with the distance covered in 6 min. The best multiple regression model included these four variables resulting in the following equation: 145.343 + [11.78 x age (years)] + [292.22 x height (m)] + [0.611 x dif. HR (bpm)] - [2.684 x body weight (kg)]. The intraclass correlation coefficient confirmed the reproducibility among tests. CONCLUSION: The reference equation for the 6-min walk test was generated and the distance covered is influenced by age, height, difference in heart rate before and after the test, and body weight.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".