Effect of 15% Body Weight Support on Exercise Capacity of Adults Without Impairments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: External support of body weight, a technique used for the gait training of patients with neurologic conditions, may also be beneficial for tests of exercise capacity in people whose impairments in motor function and balance have traditionally precluded such testing. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of using external support of 15% of body mass during treadmill exercise testing of adults without impairments. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Seven men and 8 women (mean age=55.2 years, SD=11.3, range=43-82) performed 3 treadmill tests with random assignment of testing condition: (1) no body weight support (BWS)-standard test, (2) 0% BWS-harness in place but no use of external support, and (3) 15% BWS-use of external support for 15% of body mass. Expired gas was analyzed to determine oxygen uptake, carbon dioxide production, minute ventilation, tidal volume, heart rate, and respiratory exchange ratio. RESULTS: Use of external support for 15% of body mass did not affect the end-expiratory gas exchange variables, although the time to achieve peak values was lengthened. Maximal tidal volume was lower in the 15% BWS test, but maximal minute ventilation was not different. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Because 15% BWS did not affect the exercise capacity of adults without known impairments, future study of its application to testing of patients with neurologic injuries is warranted.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".