Reproducibility of the 6-minute Walk Test in Obese Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The six-minute walk test (6MWT) is an inexpensive, quick and safe tool to evaluate the functional capacity of patients with heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The aim of this study was to determine the reproducibility of the 6MWT in overweight and obese individuals. We thus undertook a prospective repeated-measure validity study taking place in our academic weight management outpatient clinic. The 6MWT was conducted twice the same day in 21 overweight or obese adult subjects (15 females and 6 males). Repeatability of walking distance was the primary outcome. Anthropometric measures, blood pressure and heart rate were also recorded. Participant's mean BMI was 37.2+/-9.8 kg/m(2) (range: 27.0-62.3 kg/m(2)). Walking distance in the morning (mean=452+/-90 m) and in the afternoon (mean=458+/-97 m) were highly correlated (r=0.948; 95% Confidence Interval 0.877-0.978; p<0.001). Walking distance was negatively correlated with BMI (r=-0.47, p=0.03), waist circumference (r=-0.43, p=0.05) and pre-test heart rate (r=-0.54, p=0.01). Our findings indicate that the 6MWT is highly reproducible in obese subjects and could thus be used as a fitness indicator in clinical studies and clinical care in this population.
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 | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 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".