Relative and Absolute Reliability of Physical Function Measures in People with End-Stage Renal Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: End-stage renal disease (ESRD) is a condition affecting multiple physiological systems, leading to a decline in physical function. Effectiveness of therapeutic interventions in people with ESRD has been assessed using various functional and activity outcome measures. The purpose of this study was to determine the relative and absolute reliability of the 6-minute walk test (6MWT), timed sit-to-stand in 30 seconds (TSS30), and maximal and adjusted activity scores (MAS-HAP, AAS-HAP) of the Human Activity Profile (HAP) in people with ESRD. METHOD: A convenience sample of 25 participants (67.2±14.2 years) was recruited from an outpatient dialysis unit. Relative reliability was determined using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC(2,1)), and absolute test-retest reliability with the standard error of measurement (SEM) and minimal detectable change at the 95% confidence interval (MDC(95)) statistics, respectively. The test-retest interval was 1 week. RESULTS: Relative reliability (ICC(2,1)) was 0.93 for both the 6MWT and the TSS30, 0.92 for the AAS-HAP, and 0.76 for the MAS-HAP. Absolute reliability (SEM and MDC(95)) values for the 6MWT, AAS-HAP, and TSS30 were 28 m and 77 m, 4.1 and 11.4, and 0.9 and 2.6 repetitions, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the 6MWT, TSS30, and AAS-HAP are reliable physical function and activity outcome measures in people with ESRD. However, the magnitude of the absolute reliability statistics suggests significant within-participant variability on repeat testing 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 | 0.014 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".