Paced-Walk and Step Tests to Assess Exertional Dyspnea in COPD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study reports on the development and test-retest reproducibility of a modified shuttle walking and step testing protocols to assess exertional dyspnea in patients with COPD. Patients with COPD randomly performed four externally paced 3-min bouts of shuttle walking at 1.5, 2.5, 4.0 and 6.0 km x h(- 1) or stepping at constant rate of 18, 22, 26 and 32 steps x min(- 1). Walking and stepping procedures were repeated once, on a separate occasion. Ventilation, heart rate, gas exchange parameters and dyspnea Borg scores were obtained at the end of each exercise bout. Most patients completed walking or stepping at the slow and middle speed cadences but only 33% completed walking at 6.0 km x h(- 1) and 40% completed stepping at 32 steps x min(- 1). Walking and stepping at progressively faster pace caused a progressive increase in ventilation and dyspnea. Test-retest Pearson correlation coefficients for ventilation, heart rate, gas exchange parameters and dyspnea scores over the four exercise bouts, all exceeded 0.80. Intra-class correlation coefficients were at least as strong as Pearson coefficients. Bland & Altman representation showed that for repeated Borg scores, 92 and 96% of points lied within 2 SD of the mean difference between test-retest values for walking and stepping. The majority of moderate and severe COPD patients completed the 3-min shuttle waking testing at 1.5 to 4.0 km x h(- 1) and the 3-min of step testing at rates between 18 and 26 steps x min(- 1). Both field tests were highly reproducible in patients with COPD.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".