Validity and Reliability of the 6-Minute Walk Test in a Cardiac Rehabilitation Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Although the 6-minute walk test is commonly used to assess the functional status of patients with severe cardiopulmonary disease, few studies have tested its value in a cardiac rehabilitation (CR) population with milder disease status. The purpose of this study was to examine the validity and reliability of the 6-minute walk in a Phase II/III CR program. METHODS: Ninety-four patients (61 men, 33 women) aged 63 +/- 10 years completed three 6-minute walks on nonconsecutive days. Patients also completed the Duke Activity Status Index (DASI) and the Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36). In addition, maximum metabolic equivalents (METs) from a symptom-limited graded exercise test were obtained from files. RESULTS: The 6-minute walk was linearly related to maximum METs (r = 0.687, P < 0.001), supporting the validity of the test. Patients walked significantly farther in each 6-minute walk (F = 19.83, P < 0.001), and strong test-retest reliability was demonstrated (intraclass correlation = 0.97). Distance walked decreased with older age (F = 19.49, P < 0.001), with men walking farther than women (F = 7.19, P < 0.01). The 6-minute walk was moderately correlated with scores from the DASI (r = 0.502, P < 0.001), and the Physical Function subscale of the SF-36 (r = 0.624, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The 6-minute walk is a valid and reliable method of assessing functional ability in a Phase II/III CR population. A learning effect of 6% was observed over the three walks; however, it is unknown if this learning effect will be retained over time. This test may be particularly valuable to smaller CR centers that want to document functional improvements but do not have access to conventional treadmill 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 | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".