Cardiorespiratory Responses During the 6-Minute Walk and Ramp Cycle Ergometer Tests and Their Relationship to Physical Activity in Stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The 6-minute walk test (6MWT) is used to measure exercise capacity after stroke. We sought to compare cardiorespiratory responses during the 6MWT with responses to a ramp cycle ergometer test (CET) in community-dwelling individuals with stroke. A secondary objective was to determine the relationship between cardiorespiratory responses during each test and daily physical activity. METHODS: Participants completed 3 evaluation sessions. The CET and 6MWT were conducted in 2 separate sessions at least 72 hours apart. Participants wore a portable gas analysis unit (Cosmed K4b2), which also measured heart rate (HR) during the 6MWT. A uniaxial accelerometer (activPAL) was used to measure time spent upright (standing and stepping) over 5 days as an estimate of daily physical activity. RESULTS: Complete CET and 6MWT data were obtained for 16 participants (14 men), a mean ± standard deviation of 2.0 ± 1.1 years after stroke and 71.1 ± 9.7 years of age. Compared with the 6MWT, the CET elicited a higher VO(2peak) (P = .032), VCO(2peak) (P = .005), respiratory exchange ratio (P = .015), and self-reported perceived breathing (P < .0001) and leg heaviness (P < .0001) at test completion and a lower HR(peak) (P = .029). Except for the first minute, VO(2) during the 6MWT was, on average, 80% to 85% of VO(2peak) from the CET. Among 15 participants, average time spent upright per day was not significantly associated with 6MWT distance (r = 0.447, P = .096) or VO(2peak) from the CET (r = 0.388, P = .153). CONCLUSIONS: Exercise intensity achieved during the 6MWT appeared sufficiently high for aerobic training, assuming CET VO(2peak) accurately reflects aerobic capacity. The 6MWT may be useful for prescribing aerobic exercise poststroke.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".