Significance of changes in endurance shuttle walking performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The endurance shuttle walking test (ESWT) has shown good responsiveness to interventions in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, the minimal important difference (MID) for this test remains unknown, therefore limiting its interpretability. METHODS: Patients with COPD who completed two or more ESWTs following pulmonary rehabilitation (n=132; forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) 48 ± 22%) or bronchodilation (n=69; FEV1 50 ± 12%) rated their performance of the day in comparison with their previous performance on a 7-point scale ranging from -3 (large deterioration) to +3 (large improvement). The relationship between subjective perception of changes and objective changes in performance during the shuttle walk was evaluated. RESULTS: Following pulmonary rehabilitation, the anchor-based approach did not allow a valid estimation of the MID in the ESWT performance to be obtained. After bronchodilation, patient ratings of change correlated significantly with the difference in walking distance (r=0.53, p<0.001) and endurance time (r=0.55, p<0.001). For the pharmacotherapy data, regression analysis indicated that a 65 s (95% CI 45 to 85) change in endurance time and a 95 m (95% CI 60 to 115) change in walking distance were associated with a 1-point change in the rating of change scale. These changes represented 13-15% of the baseline values. CONCLUSIONS: A change in endurance shuttle walking performance of 45-85 s (or 60-115 m) after bronchodilation is likely to be perceived by patients. This MID value may be specific to the intervention from which it was derived.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".