The Duke Activity Status Index in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Exercise capacity is impaired at a younger age in CKD patients than in the general population. This study examined the reliability of the Duke Activity Status Index (DASI) questionnaire as a measure of exercise capacity in medically stable adults with stage 3-4 CKD (estimated GFR [eGFR], 15-59 ml/min per 1.73 m(2)). DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Peak oxygen uptake (VO(2)peak), estimated from DASI responses and cardiopulmonary exercise test measurements, was obtained at baseline and 6 months in a derivation sample (n=23) and once in a validation sample (n=20). Bland-Altman analysis and linear mixed models were used to estimate bias, concordance correlation coefficients, and intraclass correlation coefficients as the proportion of the variance due to participant (intertest reliability) and method (test-retest reliability). RESULTS: The two samples were homogeneous with respect to age (mean 60 ± 14 years), eGFR (35.5 ± 15 ml/min per 1.73 m(2)), male sex (53%), and diabetes (56%). Mean measured VO(2)peak was 16.5 ± 4 ml/kg per min. The DASI questionnaire overestimated VO(2)peak by 4.3 ml/kg per min. Intertest reliability was 53% when eGFR was ≥35 ml/min per 1.73 m(2) (median) and 60% when eGFR was <35 ml/min per 1.73 m(2) (P<0.01). Test-retest reliability was 81% when eGFR was <35 ml/min per 1.73 m(2) and 71% when eGFR was ≥35 ml/min per 1.73 m(2) (P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The DASI questionnaire may be a reliable measure of exercise capacity in CKD patients, especially when eGFR is <35 ml/min per 1.73 m(2). Larger prospective studies are needed to determine its prognostic value.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".