Metabolic Rate and Perceived Exertion of Walking in Older Adults With Idiopathic Chronic Fatigue
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fatigue is a common complaint in older adults, often not associated with underlying medical conditions. The purpose of this study was to investigate metabolic rate (MR) of walking, walking performance, and perception-based exertion during walking in older adults with and without idiopathic chronic fatigue (ICF). METHODS: 20 older adults (aged 70.8±4.9 years), reporting 2 SD above normative values of the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue scale and without overt health conditions that explained their symptoms, were compared with 25 age-matched older adults (73.2±5.1 years) without fatigue symptoms. Participants walked 400 m at a rapid pace on a 20-m course. On a separate visit, oxygen consumption was measured during treadmill test at standard (40.2 m/min), preferred paces (40-83 m/min) and peak capacity. Ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) were measured at each treadmill stage and after each lap of the 400-m walk test. RESULTS: During the 400-m walk test, individuals with ICF showed lower overall walking speed and reported a steady increase in RPE with no change observed in non-fatigued group (1.63±1.72 vs 0.27±0.68, p < .01). Similar findings on RPE were noted on treadmill test. Gross MR, mass-specific MR, mass-specific net MR, and MR as a percent of peak oxygen consumption of walking were similar between groups during standard, preferred paces and peak capacity on treadmill. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that ICF in older adults is not related to elevated metabolic cost of walking. Higher RPE without concomitant decreases in performance indicate a potential disconnect between metabolic output and sensations during movement.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".