Abstract P322: Reproducibility, Validity, and Responsiveness of the 200-Meter Fast Walk Test in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The 200-Meter Fast Walk Test (200-mFWT) has recently been designed to assess functional capacities at a higher intensity level than does the 6-Minute Walk Test in healthy elderly people and in coronary artery disease (CAD) patient. Objective: to investigate the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the 200-mFWT in coronary artery disease CAD patients engaged in a cardiac rehabilitation program. Design: Descriptive study. Setting: tertiary care hospital. Subjects: Thirty stable CAD patients (51.9±8.7 yrs), referred to the cardiac rehabilitation department after an acute coronary syndrom (ACS). Main measures: 6MWT distance, time to perform the 200-mFWT, peak power output of the graded maximal exercise test (GMET), before and after the program; SF-36 quality of life questionnaire at baseline. Walk tests were performed twice at baseline to assess reliability. Results: The 200-mFWT was highly reliable (ICC=0.97). It was significantly correlated with the GMET peak power and the 6-MWT at baseline (r=-0.417; p<0.05; and r=-0.566; p<0.01, respectively) and after the training program (r=-0.460, p<0.05; and r=-0.926; p<0.01respectively). At baseline, there was a strong correlation between the 200-mFWT time and the physical component score of the SF-36 (r=-0.77; P<0.01), but not between the 200-mFWT time and the SF-36 mental component score. Mean 200-mFWT time was significantly different between the patients performing ≤ 90Watts (n=11) or ≥ 100Watts (n=19) at the baseline GMET (121.7±13.6 vs 115.5±10.1 sec; P<0.05). The responsiveness was strong with a standardized response mean at 1.11. Conclusion: the 200-mFWT is a reliable, valid, discriminant, and responsive high-intensity walk test in CAD patients after an ACS. It can thus give additional information to those given by the 6-MWT and the GMET.
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 | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".