Does verbal encouragement actually improve performance in the 6-minute walk test?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance in the 6-minute walk test (6 MWT) of elderly patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) by comparing to a group of healthy elderly patients, performed with and without verbal encouragement. This cross-sectional study compared 40 patients with COPD (forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1%) = 53.7 ± 23.8%; forced vital capacity (FVC%) = 65.5 ± 20.8%; and the FEV1/FVC ratio = 55.4 ± 12.4) and 40 healthy elderly patients (control). The 6 MWT's were performed with and without verbal encouragement according to the American Thoracic Society (ATS), monitoring the distance walked (6 MWD), the duration of walking (TW) and the perceived effort index (PEI) through the Borg scale between the groups. No differences were observed in patients with COPD when the tests were performed with and without verbal encouragement for the 6 MWD, TW and PEI, the same occurring in the control group for the 6 MWD, TW and PEI, respectively. The use of verbal encouragement was not sufficient to promote improvement in the performance of the 6 MWT (6 MWD, TW and PEI) of patients with COPD and healthy elderly patients.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".