Interpreting Changes in Endurance Shuttle Walking Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rationale: The endurance shuttle walk has recently been shown to be highly responsive to both bronchodilation and pulmonary rehabilitation. The degree to which changes in endurance shuttle walking performance are perceptible to patients is unknown. Objective: To evaluate the relationship between objective and subjective measures of change in endurance shuttle walking performance. Methods: 129 comparison points were obtained from 69 patients with COPD (FEV1: 47±16%) who completed two or more endurance shuttle walking tests as part of a bronchodilation study. Patients were asked to rate their performance of the day in comparison to their previous performance on a 7&S209; point scale ranging from -3 (large deterioration) to +3 (large improvement). These ratings were related to changes in walking distance and endurance time, expressed both as delta and percent change. Results: Patient ratings of change were significantly correlated with delta walking distance (r=0.44, P < 0.001), delta endurance time (r=0.46, P < 0.001), percent change in walking distance (r=0.54, P < 0.001), and percent change in endurance time (r=0.55, P < 0.001). Deteriorations in walking performance were perceived in 34% of cases, while improvements were detected in 81% of cases. Conclusion: Changes in endurance shuttle walking performance, especially improvements, are well perceived by patients with COPD. From this set of data, it should be possible to identify the smallest change in walking performance with a high likelihood of being perceived by the patients (MCID).
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".