Reliability of the six-minute walk test in people with fibromyalgia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the test-retest reliability of the 6-minute walk test in people with fibromyalgia. METHODS: Twenty-six subjects (27-59 years of age) performed 3 walk tests over consecutive days before and after a 4-week treatment program. Reliability was determined using a one-way repeated measures analysis of variance and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC2,1). RESULTS: Reliability of the 6-minute walk test was excellent both at program intake (ICC2,1 = 0.91) and program completion (ICC2,1 = 0.98). On program intake, significant differences (P < 0.01) were found between test 1 (478 +/- 61 m) and test 2 (492 +/- 57 m), and between test 1 and test 3 (495 +/- 60 m). On program completion, there were no significant differences across the 3 replicate tests (507 m, 505 m, and 509 m). CONCLUSIONS: The 6-minute walk test is a reliable measure in people with fibromyalgia. In this study, two trials were required to achieve a stable walk performance before a treatment program. This learning effect was not present following the intervention.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".