Use of exercise testing in the evaluation of interventional efficacy: an official ERS statement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This document reviews 1) the measurement properties of commonly used exercise tests in patients with chronic respiratory diseases and 2) published studies on their utilty and/or evaluation obtained from MEDLINE and Cochrane Library searches between 1990 and March 2015.Exercise tests are reliable and consistently responsive to rehabilitative and pharmacological interventions. Thresholds for clinically important changes in performance are available for several tests. In pulmonary arterial hypertension, the 6-min walk test (6MWT), peak oxygen uptake and ventilation/carbon dioxide output indices appear to be the variables most responsive to vasodilators. While bronchodilators do not always show clinically relevant effects in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, high-intensity constant work-rate (endurance) tests (CWRET) are considerably more responsive than incremental exercise tests and 6MWTs. High-intensity CWRETs need to be standardised to reduce interindividual variability. Additional physiological information and responsiveness can be obtained from isotime measurements, particularly of inspiratory capacity and dyspnoea. Less evidence is available for the endurance shuttle walk test. Although the incremental shuttle walk test and 6MWT are reliable and less expensive than cardiopulmonary exercise testing, two repetitions are needed at baseline. All exercise tests are safe when recommended precautions are followed, with evidence suggesting that no test is safer than others.
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 | 0.062 | 0.090 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".