Repeatability of Usual and Fast Walking Speeds in Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief RATIONALE: Evaluation of the role of walking speeds in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) should be preceded by an assessment of its repeatability. This study aimed to establish the repeatability of the usual (susual) and fast (sfast) walking speeds among patients with stable COPD and determine the accuracy of manual measurement. METHODS: Participants demonstrated their susual and sfast over 10 m with speed calculated using a stopwatch; the accuracy was confirmed with optical sensors. The walks were repeated after a 5-minute rest; the session was repeated on 2 subsequent days. The coefficient of repeatability (CR) was calculated for both speeds, and their stability over days was determined. RESULTS: A total of 29 participants (forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) = 43 ± 25% predicted; FEV1/forced vital capacity (FVC) = 41 ± 13%; susual = 60.3 ± 11 m·min−1; sfast = 74.3 ± 11.5 m·min−1) completed the study. The CRs for the susual and sfast were 7.5 (95% CI: 5.0-10.0) and 7.1 (95% CI: 4.8-9.4) m·min−1, respectively. There was a small increase in the susual (5%; P < .001) on the second trial of every day and between successive days (5%; P < .001); the sfast was not different between trials (P = .09) and increased only between day 1 and day 2 (4%; P < .0001). There was no difference between the stopwatch and the sensor determined susual (−0.5 [95% CI: −1.1 to 0.1] m·min−1; P = .12). The small difference (−2.1 [95% CI: −2.7 to −1.5] m·min−1; P = .0001) between the methods for sfast was within the CR of the sfast. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with moderate to severe COPD, repeated measures of the susual and sfast using a stopwatch support the use of these tests for simple, quick assessments of disability. Simple tests, like the usual and fast walk tests, are common in the study of aging and many chronic diseases and are gaining popularity in the study of chronic lung diseases, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, because of their simplicity, responsiveness, utility, and prognostic abilities. The implementation of any test requires an understanding of its measurement characteristics. We report the coefficient of repeatability of the usual and fast walk speeds (7.5 [95% CI: 5.0-10.0] and 7.1 [95%, CI: 4.8-9.4] m·min−1, respectively) of individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease measured by a simple, quick, inexpensive, and easily used method.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".