Going places: Does the two-minute walk test predict the six-minute walk test in lower extremity amputees?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Assessing a patient's ability to walk the distance required for community ambulation (at least 300 m) is important in amputee rehabilitation. During the 2-min walk test, most amputees cannot walk 300 m. Thus, the 6-min walk test may be preferred, but it has not been fully validated in this population. This study examined the convergent and discriminative validity of the 6-min walk test and assessed whether the 2-min test could predict the results of the 6-min test. METHODS: A total of 86 patients with unilateral or bilateral amputations at the Syme, transtibial, knee disarticulation or transfemoral level completed the 6-min walk test, 2-min walk test, Timed Up and Go test, Locomotor Capabilities Index version 5, Houghton Scale of Prosthetic Use, and Activity-Specific Balance Confidence scale. RESULTS: The 6-min walk test correlated with the other tests (R = 0.57-0.95), demonstrating convergent validity. It demonstrated discriminative validity with respect to age, aetiology of amputation, and K-level (p < 0.0001). The 2-min walk test was highly predictive of the 6-min walk test distance (R2 = 0.91). CONCLUSION: The 6-min walk test is a valid measure of amputee ambulation. However, the results suggest that it may not be necessary, since the 2-min walk test strongly predicts the 6-min walk test. Clinicians could therefore save time by using the shorter test.
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.
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 | 0.011 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it