Effort-Limited Treadmill Walk Test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the reliability and construct validity of an effort-limited treadmill walk test to measure functional ability in subjects with postpolio syndrome in an outpatient postpolio clinic. DESIGN: Functioning and distance walked on a treadmill to a Borg "hard" effort level were measured three times, a week apart, by two blinded raters in 15 subjects with postpolio syndrome, aged 37-67 yrs, with new weakness, fatigue, and pain but with no other cause of symptomatology or condition-limiting walking. One rater tested them twice. Fatigue activity level, mobility, and health-related quality of life (Medical Outcome Study Short Form Health Survey [SF-36]) defined functioning. Generalizability correlation coefficients determined intrarater, test-retest and interrater reliability. The correlations relating the distance walked and functioning determined construct validity. RESULTS: Reliability for generalizability correlation coefficients were: intrarater, 0.91; test-retest, 0.85; and interrater, 0.58. Interrater reliability improved to 0.91 with adherence to a standardized protocol. Validity was established with correlations between the distance walked and SF-36 physical component score (0.66), physical role (0.60), bodily pain (0.60), and vitality (0.55). CONCLUSIONS: The treadmill walk test provides a reproducible and valid measure of ability in persons with postpolio syndrome with a single rater, but a standardized protocol is essential for reliability.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".