Reference Values for a Multiple Repetition 6-Minute Walk Test in Healthy Adults Older Than 20 Years
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To (1) identify greatest 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) from among several repetitions (best 6MWD) in a wide age range of healthy volunteers to develop reference values for the multiple repetition 6MWD, and (2) investigate the influence of demographics, anthropometrics, and habitual exercise activity on best 6MWD. METHODS: Four 6MWD were performed on the same day in a 20-meter corridor by 41 male and 38 female healthy volunteers ranging in age from 20 to 80 years. The greatest 6MWD by each subject from among four 6MWDs was the primary outcome measure. RESULTS: Eighty-six percent had their best 6MWD after the first walk; an average increase of 43 meters was observed from first to best 6MWD (P < 0.003). Best 6MWD averaged 698 +/- 96 meters and was inversely related to age (P < 0.001), directly to height (P < 0.001), and was greater in men than women (P < 0.0002). A regression model accounted for 41% of between-subject variability in best 6MWD (P < 0.00000001). In a subset of older subjects, predicted 6MWD significantly underestimated measured best 6MWD when reference values were used from another study where test familiarization was not provided, but this difference disappeared when value were used from the present and a third study where test familiarization was provided. CONCLUSIONS: The present study is the first to provide predicted 6MWD values performed with multiple repetitions and for subjects in the 20-40-year-old age range. Selection of appropriate predicted 6MWD values for interpretation of performance should be guided by subject age and degree of test familiarization provided.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it