The Feasibility of Six-Minute and Two-Minute Walk Tests in In-patient Geriatric Rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility of the 6-minute and 2-minute walk tests in frail older persons. DESIGN: Pre/post-design with measures at admission and discharge to in-patient geriatric rehabilitation. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-two subjects (35 women, 17 men; age 80+/-8 years). RESULTS: Only 1 of the first 8 subjects could complete a single trial of the 6-minute walk test at admission. The 2-minute walk test was feasible in this population, with 50 (out of 52) subjects able to complete at least one trial at admission. There was an increase in distance walked when three trials of the 2-minute walk were performed, at both admission and discharge (p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: The 2-minute walk test is a feasible measure of functional capacity and was better tolerated than the 6-minute walk test in older persons in geriatric rehabilitation. Consideration needs to be given to the potential of a training effect or the need for repeated measures to obtain a best estimate for the 2-minute walk test.
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 | 0.008 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".