MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996200378 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0027993

Assessment of Daily Life Physical Activities in Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension

2011· article· en· W1996200378 on OpenAlexaff
Vincent Mainguy, Steeve Provencher, François Maltais, Simon Malenfant, Didier Saey

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPulmonary Hypertension Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsInstitut Universitaire de Cardiologie et de Pneumologie de QuébecUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineEnergy expenditurePhysical activityCardiologyActivities of daily livingPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), the six-minute walk test (6MWT) is believed to be representative of patient's daily life physical activities (DL(PA)). Whether DL(PA) are decreased in PAH and whether the 6MWT is representative of patient's DL(PA) remain unknown. METHODS: 15 patients with idiopathic PAH (IPAH) and 10 patients with PAH associated with limited systemic sclerosis (PAH-SSc) were matched with 15 healthy control subjects and 10 patients with limited systemic sclerosis without PAH. Each subject completed a 6MWT. The mean number of daily steps and the mean energy expenditure and duration of physical activities >3 METs were assessed with a physical activity monitor for seven consecutive days and used as markers of DL(PA). RESULTS: The mean number of daily steps and the mean daily energy expenditure and duration of physical activities >3 METs were all reduced in PAH patients compared to their controls (all p<0.05). The mean number of daily steps correlated with the 6MWT distance for both IPAH and PAH-SSc patients (r = 0.76, p<0.01 and r = 0.85, p<0.01), respectively. CONCLUSION: DL(PA) are decreased in PAH and correlate with the 6MWT distance. Functional exercise capacity may thus be a useful surrogate of DL(PA) in PAH.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.107
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.187 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations101
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicPulmonary Hypertension Research and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207