Comparing peak and submaximal cardiorespiratory responses during field walking tests with incremental cycle ergometry in COPD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Field and laboratory-based tests are used to measure exercise capacity in people with COPD. A comparison of the cardiorespiratory responses to field tests, referenced to a laboratory test, is needed to appreciate the relative physiological demands. We sought to compare peak and submaximal cardiorespiratory responses to the 6-min walk test, incremental shuttle walk test and endurance shuttle walk test with a ramp cycle ergometer test (CET) in patients with COPD. METHODS: Twenty-four participants (FEV(1) 50 ± 14%; 66.5 ± 7.7 years; 15 men) completed four sessions, separated by ≥24 h. During an individual session, participants completed either two 6-min walk tests, incremental shuttle walk tests, endurance shuttle walk tests using standardized protocols, or a single CET, wearing a portable gas analysis unit (Cosmed K4b(2)) which included measures of heart rate and arterial oxygen saturation (SpO(2)). RESULTS: Between tests, no difference was observed in the peak rate of oxygen uptake (F(3,69) = 1.2; P = 0.31), end-test heart rate (F(2,50) = 0.6; P = 0.58) or tidal volume (F(3,69) = 1.5; P = 0.21). Compared with all walking tests, the CET elicited a higher peak rate of carbon dioxide output (1173 ± 350 mL/min; F(3,62) = 4.8; P = 0.006), minute ventilation (48 ± 17 L/min; F(3,69) = 10.2; P < 0.001) and a higher end-test SpO(2) (95 ± 4%; F(3,63) = 24.9; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with moderate COPD, field walking tests elicited a similar peak rate of oxygen uptake and heart rate as a CET, demonstrating that both self- and externally paced walking tests progress to high intensities.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".