Pulmonary Oxygen Uptake and Heart Rate Kinetics During the Six-Minute Walk Test in Transplant Recipients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The effect of organ transplantation on arterial compliance, pulmonary oxygen uptake (VO2p) and heart rate kinetics during the 6-minute walk test (6-MWT) remains unknown. METHODS: Twenty-two thoracic (heart and/or lung) organ transplant recipients (TOTR, 51+/-12 years) and 30 abdominal (kidney, kidney-pancreas, or liver) organ transplant recipients (AOTR, 46+/-11 years) from the 2006 Canadian Transplant Games, and 37 healthy controls (HC) completed a 6-MWT. VO2p, heart rate kinetics, and arterial compliance were determined. RESULTS: The 6-MWT distance and highest VO2p were significantly lower in TOTR and AOTR versus HC. The highest 6-MWT heart rate was lower in TOTR (11%) and AOTR (13%) versus HC. VO2p kinetics were slower in TOTR (52+/-11 sec, P<or=0.001) and AOTR (45+/-24 sec, P<or=0.001) versus HC (28+/-9 sec). Heart rate kinetics were slower in TOTR (100+/-49 sec) versus AOTR (41+/-21 sec, P<or=0.001) and HC (34+/-21 sec, P<or=0.001), but not between AOTR and HC. Small and large artery compliance were 26% (P=0.007) and 19% (P=0.004) lower, respectively, in TOTR versus HC. Large artery compliance was 14% lower in TOTR versus AOTR (P=0.017). 6-MWT distance was significantly related to VO2p kinetics (r=-0.35) and the highest 6-MWT VO2p (r=0.72). CONCLUSIONS: TOTR and AOTR have abnormal VO2p kinetics, which is secondary to prolonged heart rate kinetics and impaired vascular function in TOTR, but not AOTR.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".