Alternatives to the Six-Minute Walk Test in Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The physiological response during the endurance shuttle walk test (ESWT), the cycle endurance test (CET) and the incremental shuttle walk test (ISWT) remains unknown in PAH. We tested the hypothesis that endurance tests induce a near-maximal physiological demand comparable to incremental tests. We also hypothesized that differences in respiratory response during exercise would be related to the characteristics of the exercise tests. METHODS: Within two weeks, twenty-one PAH patients (mean age: 54(15) years; mean pulmonary arterial pressure: 42(12) mmHg) completed two cycling exercise tests (incremental cardiopulmonary cycling exercise test (CPET) and CET) and three field tests (ISWT, ESWT and six-minute walk test (6MWT)). Physiological parameters were continuously monitored using the same portable telemetric device. RESULTS: Peak oxygen consumption (VO(2peak)) was similar amongst the five exercise tests (p = 0.90 by ANOVA). Walking distance correlated markedly with the VO(2peak) reached during field tests, especially when weight was taken into account. At 100% exercise, most physiological parameters were similar between incremental and endurance tests. However, the trends overtime differed. In the incremental tests, slopes for these parameters rose steadily over the entire duration of the tests, whereas in the endurance tests, slopes rose sharply from baseline to 25% of maximum exercise at which point they appeared far less steep until test end. Moreover, cycling exercise tests induced higher respiratory exchange ratio, ventilatory demand and enhanced leg fatigue measured subjectively and objectively. CONCLUSION: Endurance tests induce a maximal physiological demand in PAH. Differences in peak respiratory response during exercise are related to the modality (cycling vs. walking) rather than the progression (endurance vs. incremental) of the exercise tests.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".