MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161653442 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v5n6p19

The Assessment of Dyspnea during the Vigorous Intensity Exercise by Three Dyspnea Rating Scales in Inactive Medical Personnel

2013· article· en· W2161653442 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Patrawut Intarakamhang

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicSports and Physical Education Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFaculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University
KeywordsPhysical therapyRating scaleMedicineExercise intensityRating of perceived exertionLikert scaleHeart rateIntensity (physics)TreadmillMetabolic equivalentSports medicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychologyBlood pressurePhysical activityInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is well recognized that exercise is good for health especially as it's known to prevent metabolic syndromes such as diabetes, hypertension and heart disease. To reap the benefits from exercise the most appropriate level of intensity must be determined, the level of intensity ranging from low, low to moderate to hard (vigorous). This study is aimed to 1. To investigate and evaluate 3 subjective rating scales. The Borg scale, the Combined Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) + FACES Dyspnea Rating Scale (FACES) and the Likert scale, during hard (vigorous) exercise. 2. To compare the effectiveness of the Borg scale and Combined Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) + FACES Dyspnea Rating Scale during the hard (vigorous) intensity exercise. This study uses a descriptive methodology. The sample group was 73 medical personnel that were leading an inactive life style, volunteers from Phramongkutklao Hospital. Participants were randomly divided into 3 groups. Group 1, those to report using the Borg Scale, group 2 using NRS + FACES, and group 3 to subjectively assess the intensity of the exercise using the Likert scale during a treadmill Exercise Stress Test (EST) using the Bruce protocol. The upper limit of the intensity in the study was equal to 85% of the maximal heart rate of all participants. The subjective reporting of the experienced level of dyspnea was undertaken immediately after the completion of exercise. The average age of participants was 23.37 years old. The 26 participants reporting using the Borg scale had mean Borg scale score of 13.46+1.77, a mode score of 15. The 24 participants reporting intensity levels through NRS +FACES had a mean NRS + FACES score of 6.83+1.09 and mode on the NRS + FACES scale equal to 7. The Likert scale group evaluated 23 participants with a mean Likert scale score of 2.74. That is those choosing Levels 2 and 3 were 6 (26.9%) and 17 participants (73.95%), respectively. Comparing the two groups with the Borg scale at equal to or greater than 15 and NRS + FACES greater than or equal to 7 using a Chi-square test showed that there were no statistical significant differences at p = 0.084. Using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient it was found that the subjective rating of intensity in the 3 different groups was not statistically significantly related to heart rate at 85% of maximal heart rate (P>0.05). NRS + FACES, the evaluation of the intensity of exercise at the hard (vigorous) level, was not statistically significantly different from the Borg scale.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.429 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health ScienceSame topicSports and Physical Education ResearchFrench-language works237,207