Reliability of Upper Body Exercise Responses in Community-Dwelling Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Arm exercise testing provides an estimate of aerobic capacity in people with lower extremity dysfunction where true maximal heart rate and oxygen uptake may not be attainable with standard leg exercise testing. PURPOSE: To determine the test-retest reliability of heart rate (HR) response and energy cost of exercise (VO2peak) during a maximal exercise protocol using a novel, custom-built upper body ergometer in community-dwelling older adults. METHODS: Nine subjects (70.2 ± 5.7 years; BMI 27.2 ± 3.2 kg/m2; 3 women), performed two trials (one week apart) of an incremental maximal exercise test to determine upper body (VO2peak). The arm crank ergometer test included two minutes of seated rest, followed by a three-minute warm-up with no load. After a further two minutes of seated rest, the test continued with one minute at a power output of 0 watts, followed by increments of 10 W (men) and 3 W (women) every minute. The crank rate was set by a tachometer at 60 rpm. The test continued until the subject could no longer maintain the cranking rate (a decrease by more than 5 rpm after a warning). Heart rate was monitored continuously and breath-by-breath VO2 was measured using a portable metabolic gas analyzer. Test-retest reliability was assessed using one-way repeated measures analysis of variance and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC2,1). RESULTS: Test-retest reliability was excellent for both HR (ICC2,1 = 0.85) and (VO2peak) (ml/min) (ICC2,1 = 0.87). The standard error of measurement was 76 ml. CONCLUSIONS: The test-retest reliability of a maximal upper body exercise test protocol using a novel, custom-built arm ergometer was excellent in our sample of community-dwelling older adults. Further testing of older adults with lower extremity dysfunction is warranted. Supported by the Lawson Health Research Institute.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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 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".