MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116192143 · doi:10.1093/ptj/80.8.782

Submaximal Exercise Testing: Clinical Application and Interpretation

2000· article· en· W2116192143 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Therapy · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouver General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReliability (semiconductor)Physical therapyMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationTest (biology)Heart rateExertionBlood pressureInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Compared with maximal exercise testing, submaximal exercise testing appears to have greater applicability to physical therapists in their role as clinical exercise specialists. This review contrasts maximal and submaximal exercise testing. Two major categories of submaximal tests (ie, predictive and performance tests) and their relative merits are described. Predictive tests are submaximal tests that are used to predict maximal aerobic capacity. Performance tests involve measuring the responses to standardized physical activities that are typically encountered in everyday life. To maximize the validity and reliability of data obtained from submaximal tests, physical therapists are cautioned to apply the tests selectively based on their indications; to adhere to methods, including the requisite number of practice sessions; and to use measurements such as heart rate, blood pressure, exertion, and pain to evaluate test performance and to safely monitor patients.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.332

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.304 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it