Dalhousie Pictorial Scales Measuring Dyspnea and Perceived Exertion during Exercise for Children and Adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Alternative scales to measure dyspnea and perceived exertion have been sought due to concerns regarding understanding and validity of any Borg scale in pediatric populations. OBJECTIVES: To demonstrate content validity of Dalhousie Dyspnea and Perceived Exertion Scales developed for children and adolescents. METHODS: We obtained ratings for dyspnea and perceived exertion using both Borg CR-10 and Dalhousie Scales during incremental cycle exercise in 100 children and adolescents, healthy or with respiratory disease. Content validity was determined by correlating perceived leg exertion rating versus heart rate or %peak work capacity and dyspnea rating versus ventilation expressed as %peak ventilation. The stimulus-perceptual response was modeled as a quadratic function with a delay term. Reproducibility, cross-modality usage, and language effects were assessed in a small group of Italian children during treadmill exercise. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Pictorial ratings of dyspnea and perceived exertion measured by both scale ratings rose as expected with increasing exercise intensity in children and adolescents, demonstrating excellent correlation between perceived leg exertion versus exercise intensity and dyspnea rating versus ventilation (median Spearman ρ ≥ 0.9) with either scale. There were no systematic differences in dyspnea or perceived exertion ratings between children with or without respiratory disease. Understandability and reproducibility of the Dalhousie scales was affirmed in Italian-speaking subjects performing treadmill exercise. CONCLUSIONS: Dalhousie Dyspnea and Perceived Exertion Scales offer an alternative to the Borg scale for use during exercise in pediatric subjects. Children and adolescents exhibit large variation in patterns of ratings of dyspnea and perceived exertion in incremental exercise.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".