Validity of the Baltimore Therapeutic Equipment Work Simulator in the Measurement of Lifting Endurance in Healthy Men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the criterion validity of the Baltimore Therapeutic Equipment (BTE) work simulator by comparing endurance time, oxygen uptake (VO2), and heart rate measured during real and simulated lifting tasks and to derive a regression equation for predicting actual lifting endurance from measurements on the work simulator. METHOD: Twenty healthy male volunteers repetitively lifted and lowered a load of 40 lb using the BTE work simulator and actual weights at a laboratory workstation. Postures, location, and frequency of lifts were kept constant. Endurance (defined as the time taken for the rating of perceived exertion to increase 2 units on the Borg scale) was measured under both conditions. VO2 and heart rate were also recorded, using standard physiological procedures. RESULTS: The mean values for endurance time, steady-state VO2, and heart rate were significantly different between the real and simulated tasks (p < .05). Correlation of endurance time between the two tasks was significant (r = .71, p < .05). Step wise regression analysis resulted in the following equation for predicting real endurance from simulated time measurements: predicted real time = .34 simulated time + 3.29; r = .71; SE = 1.00 min. CONCLUSION: The BTE work simulator tends to overestimate real lifting endurance performance in healthy men. The lower physiological stress during the simulated task suggests a significant difference between the real and simulated loads. Occupational therapists should exercise caution when using the results of the BTE work simulator during functional capacity evaluations.
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 | 0.006 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".