MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2085360172 · doi:10.1161/01.cir.102.13.1591

Assessment of Functional Capacity in Clinical and Research Applications

2000· review· en· W2085360172 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2000
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsCegep de Saint Jerome
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A fundamental requirement for many of the activities of daily living is the ability to perform predominantly aerobic, ie, oxygen-using, work.Such activities require the integrated efforts of the heart, lungs, and circulation to deliver oxygen to the metabolically active muscle mass.Thus, the assessment of functional or aerobic exercise time or peak oxygen consumption provides important diagnostic and prognostic information in a wide variety of clinical settings.Furthermore, numerous clinical trials, especially those in patients with heart failure, have used aerobic exercise time or peak oxygen consumption as a primary or secondary end point.This brief advisory will highlight the major clinical and research applications of functional capacity assessment.For a comprehensive review of exercise testing, the reader is referred to the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Guidelines for Exercise Testing.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score0.323

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.332
GPT teacher head0.495
Teacher spread0.163 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it