Six-Minute Walk Test for Persons with Mild or Moderate Disability from Multiple Sclerosis: Performance and Explanatory Factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The primary purpose of this study was to determine the extent to which health factors, functional measures, and pulmonary impairment explain performance on 6-Minute Walk Test (6MWT) distance in ambulatory persons with multiple sclerosis (MS). Another purpose was to determine the effect of disability and age on 6MWT performance and explanatory factors. METHODS: A cross-sectional study design was used to evaluate factors that explain performance on the 6MWT in 64 community-dwelling persons with MS-related disability (Expanded Disability Status Scale [EDSS] 3.8±1.6). Of the 64 participants, 43 (67.2%) exhibited mild disability (EDSS <4.0) and 21 (32.8%) had moderate disability (EDSS 4.0-6.5). A regression analysis compared 6MWT performance to measures of health factors (EDSS, number of medications, number of comorbidities, resting HR, systolic and diastolic blood pressure [BP]); physical performance (functional stair test [FST], sit-to-stand test [SST], static standing balance [BAL], Fatigue Severity Scale [FSS], Activities-specific Balance Confidence [ABC] Scale); and pulmonary function (forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV(1)], forced vital capacity [FVC], maximal voluntary ventilation [MVV], maximal inspiratory pressure [MIP], maximal expiratory pressure [MEP]). RESULTS: EDSS, ABC, FST, SST, BAL, MVV, MIP, and MEP were significantly associated with 6MWT distance after adjusting for age. Multiple step-wise linear regression analysis revealed that ABC, FST, and BAL were significant and independent explanatory factors of 6MWT distance. ABC and FST explained 75% of the variance in 6MWT performance (R(2)=0.75). Curvilinear regression analysis revealed that the FST is the most significant explanatory factor for 6MWT distance, explaining 79% of the variance (R(2)=0.79). CONCLUSIONS: 6MWT performance in persons with MS was explained by balance confidence (ABC) and stair-climbing ability (FST). The ABC and FST may be practical clinical measures for explaining walking ability and determining risk for disablement in persons with MS.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".