Using Continuous Data Tracking Technology to Study Exercise Adherence in Pulmonary Rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is an important component in the management of respiratory diseases. The effectiveness of PR is dependent upon adherence to exercise training recommendations. The study of exercise adherence is thus a key step towards the optimization of PR programs. To date, mostly indirect measures, such as rates of participation, completion, and attendance, have been used to determine adherence to PR. The purpose of the present protocol is to describe how continuous data tracking technology can be used to measure adherence to a prescribed aerobic training intensity on a second-by-second basis. In our investigations, adherence has been defined as the percent time spent within a specified target heart rate range. As such, using a combination of hardware and software, heart rate is measured, tracked, and recorded during cycling second-by-second for each participant, for each exercise session. Using statistical software, the data is subsequently extracted and analyzed. The same protocol can be applied to determine adherence to other measures of exercise intensity, such as time spent at a specified wattage, level, or speed on the cycle ergometer. Furthermore, the hardware and software is also available to measure adherence to other modes of training, such as the treadmill, elliptical, stepper, and arm ergometer. The present protocol, therefore, has a vast applicability to directly measure adherence to aerobic exercise.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".