The 6-Minute Walk Test as a Predictor of Objectively Measured Aerobic Fitness in Healthy Working-Aged Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: There is a paucity of research examining the 6-minute walk test (6MWT) in young to middle-aged healthy individuals, and little is known about the utility of the 6MWT for predicting aerobic fitness. PURPOSE: 1) To characterize the aerobic demand of the 6MWT in a group of healthy working-aged adults; 2) to examine the ability of the 6MWT to objectively differentiate the fitness level between participants; and 3) to create prediction equations for 6MWT distance and maximal oxygen consumption (VO2 max) using the 6MWT results in combination with easily measured anthropometric and demographic variables. METHODS: Participants (N = 44; men, 23; women, 21) completed the 6MWT, VO2 max, and a battery of simple fitness measures. RESULTS: The aerobic demand of the 6MWT was 28.7 ± 5.7 mL·kg(-1)·min(-1) (72.7% ± 11.6% of VO2 max). Rank order correlation revealed a moderate strength association between 6MWT distance and VO2 max (r = 0.49; P = 0.001). Using stepwise multiple linear regression, we were able to account for 72.4% of the variance in VO2 max using the 6MWT when combined with participant body weight, sex, resting heart rate (HR), and age according to the following equation: VO2 max (mL·kg(-1)·min(-1)) = 70.161 + (0.023 × 6MWT [m]) - (0.276 × weight [kg]) - (6.79 × sex, where m = 0, f = 1) - (0.193 × resting HR [beats per minute]) - (0.191 × age [y]). CONCLUSION: The 6MWT is of moderate-to-vigorous intensity, and may be useful in the classification of aerobic fitness, which is associated with health outcomes. Inclusion of further patient characteristics greatly increases the predictive value of the 6MWT for estimating VO2 max, which has important implications for those seeking a noninvasive and simple-to-use determinant of maximal aerobic power.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".