A Criterion Measure of Walking Capacity in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis and Its Comparison With a Treadmill Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Measurement (validity) study. OBJECTIVE: To develop and examine reproducibility of a criterion measure of walking capacity for use with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) patients, and use this criterion to examine the validity of a treadmill test for the same purpose. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: To date, there is no criterion measure of walking capacity advocated for use with LSS populations. Treadmill tests of walking have become more common in LSS literature and research, yet there is insufficient evidence to support the use of these tests as valid outcome measures. Therefore, our aim was to develop a criterion measure and to examine the validity of a treadmill protocol for the measurement of walking capacity in LSS. METHODS: A criterion measure of walking capacity in LSS, the self-paced walking test (SPWT) was developed and its test-retest reproducibility examined. Validity of a treadmill test was then examined using the criterion measure for comparison. RESULTS: The SPWT was found to be highly reproducible with a test-retest intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.98 for total distance walked, in a sample of subjects diagnosed with LSS (n = 33). Although the treadmill test was found to be highly correlated with the SPWT (r = 0.88), 89% of 45 subjects walked further during the SPWT than on the treadmill. Mean walking distances for the SPWT and treadmill test were 987.3 +/- 913.9 m and 611.3 +/- 666.0 m respectively, resulting in a significant difference (P < 0.05) between SPWT and treadmill tests. CONCLUSION: The SPWT is presented as a feasible and reproducible criterion measure of walking capacity for use with LSS patients. Although a strong relationship was demonstrated between the treadmill protocol and the SPWT, a systematic bias was observed with patients walking significantly further in the SPWT (36% in mean).
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".