Repeatability and responsiveness of exercise tests in pulmonary arterial hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exercise tolerance in pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is most commonly assessed by the 6-min walk test (6MWT). Whether endurance exercise tests are more responsive than the 6MWT remains unknown. 20 stable PAH patients (mean±sd age 53±15 years and mean pulmonary arterial pressure 44±16 mmHg) already on PAH monotherapy completed the 6MWT, the endurance shuttle walk test (ESWT) and the cycle endurance test (CET) before and after the addition of sildenafil citrate 20 mg three times daily or placebo for 28 days in a randomised double-blind crossover setting. Pre- or post-placebo tests were used to assess repeatability of each exercise test, whereas pre- or post-sildenafil citrate tests were used to assess their responsiveness. Sildenafil citrate led to placebo-corrected changes in exercise capacity of 18±25 m (p = 0.02), 58±235 s (p = 0.58) and 29±77 s (p = 0.09) for the 6MWT, the ESWT and the CET, respectively. The 6MWT was associated with a lower coefficient of variation between repeated measures (3% versus 18% versus 13%), resulting in a higher standardised response mean compared with endurance tests (0.72, 0.25 and 0.38 for the 6MWT, the ESWT and the CET, respectively). The 6MWT had the best ability to capture changes in exercise capacity when sildenafil citrate was combined with patients' baseline monotherapy, supporting its use as an outcome measure in PAH.
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 | 0.014 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".