Reliability of Maximal Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing in Men with Prostate Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To accurately assess exercise interventions and to evaluate acute and chronic cardiovascular effects in patients with early-stage cancer, consistently reliable functional outcome measures must be obtained. An incremental cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET) with gas exchange measurement to assess peak oxygen consumption (V˙O2peak) provides the gold standard outcome of cardiorespiratory fitness. METHODS: In the context of a randomized controlled trial, 40 patients with prostate cancer (mean age, 59 ± 7 yr) after radical prostatectomy performed two maximal CPET within 5.6 ± 5.5 d of each other. Incremental treadmill tests were performed in the morning under identical laboratory conditions. Reliability and within-subject variability from test 1 to test 2 for peak and submaximal variables were assessed by correlation coefficients, intraclass correlations (ICC), Bland-Altman plots, coefficient of variation, and paired t-tests. RESULTS: There was high reliability between CPET for V˙O2peak (r = 0.92; P < 0.001; ICC, 0.900), ventilatory threshold (r = 0.88; P < 0.001; ICC, 0.927), minute ventilation-carbon dioxide production relation (V˙E/V˙CO2) (r = 0.86; P < 0.001; ICC, 0.850), and peak heart rate (r = 0.95; P < 0.001; ICC, 0.944). However, high within-subject variability was observed for all CPET parameters (mean coefficient of variation, 4.7%). Compared with those for test 1, significantly higher mean values were observed for V˙O2peak (27.0 ± 5.6 vs 28.1 ± 5.3 mL·kg·min, P < 0.05), ventilatory threshold (1.91 ± 0.5 vs 1.97 ± 0.4 L·min, P < 0.05), and V˙E/V˙CO2 (31.3 ± 5.8 vs 32.8 ± 3.4, P < 0.05) in test 2. CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate the presence of significant, and potentially clinically important, variability in CPET procedures in men with clinically localized prostate cancer and have important implications for the application and use of CPET to evaluate the efficacy of interventions to improve aerobic capacity in the oncology setting.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".