Validity of Rating of Perceived Exertion Ranges in Individuals in the Subacute Stage of Stroke Recovery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rating of perceived exertion (RPE) is used to monitor or prescribe workload of exercise, but its utility among individuals with a stroke remains in question. OBJECTIVE: To examine the validity of RPE at multiple percentages of peak aerobic capacity (Vo2peak) in individuals in the subacute stage of stroke recovery. METHODS: Thirty-seven patients with stroke in the subacute stage of recovery from an inpatient rehabilitation institute completed a graded maximal exercise test on a semi-recumbent cycle ergometer. Respiratory gas exchange was monitored for analysis of Vo2, while heart rate and RPE (Borg CR10 Scale) were measured at the end of each minute. RPE was compared with expected ranges when at 60%, 70%, and 80% of Vo2peak. Post hoc analyses were performed to determine whether patient characteristics differed between participants who fell within and outside the expected RPE range at 80% of Vo2peak. RESULTS: Median (interquartile range) RPE at 60%, 70%, and 80% Vo2peak were 3.0 (3.0-3.5), 3.0 (3.0-5.0), and 4.75 (3.0-5.75), respectively; 76.2%, 69.0%, and 38.9% of participants fell into the expected RPE range at each intensity. Patient characteristics were similar between participants who fell within and outside the expected RPE range at 80% Vo2peak. CONCLUSION: RPE appears to be a reasonable indicator of exercise intensity after stroke at moderate (60%-70% Vo2peak) but not high-intensity exercise (80% Vo2peak). This conclusion is based on the high degree of between-subject variability in RPE at 80% Vo2peak. Future research should identify whether RPE can be adapted to accurately capture exertion during high-intensity exercise after stroke.
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".