MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158471347 · doi:10.4187/respcare.01047

Chester Step Test in Patients With COPD: Reliability and Correlation With Pulmonary Function Test Results

2011· article· en· W2158471347 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

VenueRespiratory Care · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsCanadian Physiotherapy Association
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCOPDStep testPulmonary function testingStage (stratigraphy)Heart rateCorrelationInternal medicineVO2 maxCardiologyTest (biology)Physical therapySurgerySignificant differenceMathematicsBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The 5-stage Chester step test assesses aerobic capacity in healthy subjects. It has not been tested in patients with COPD. OBJECTIVE: To determine the reliability of the Chester step test in patients with COPD and correlation with pulmonary function test and exercise test results. METHODS: Thirty-two patients (mean ± SD FEV(1) 46 ± 15% of predicted) undertook 2 Chester step tests and two 6-min walk tests, on different days, in random order. A subgroup of 11 patients performed incremental cycle ergometry. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients performed stage 1 of the Chester step test. Nineteen patients performed stage 2 of the Chester step test. The number of steps was highly reproducible: 66 ± 41 steps vs 68 ± 41 steps. There was no difference in heart rate or S(pO(2)) between the 2 Chester step tests at the peak of exercise or at the end of each stage. There was a significant correlation between number of steps and FEV(1) (r = 0.43, P = .02), and 6-min walk distance (r = 0.60, P = .001). Heart rate increased according to advanced stages of the Chester step test, up to 81 ± 13% of predicted. There was a significant correlation between number of steps and peak heart rate (r = 0.55, P = .001). In the 11 patients who performed the incremental cycling test there was a significant correlation between number of steps and peak work load (r = 0.69, P = .02). In the 6 patients in whom oxygen uptake could be estimated from the Chester step test, oxygen uptake was higher than that measured at the peak of the cycling test (30.8 ± 5.1 mL/kg/min vs 17.4 ± 4.5 mL/kg/min, respectively, P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: Despite being highly reproducible, the Chester step test had a very short duration in patients with COPD. The number of steps incremented in each stage seems to be too large for these patients. An adaptation of the Chester step test should be considered for patients with COPD.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.766

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.220 · 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