Reference values for the six-minute pegboard and ring test in healthy adults in Brazil
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine reference values for the six-minute pegboard and ring test (6PBRT) in healthy adults in Brazil, correlating the results with arm length, circumference of the upper arm/forearm of the dominant arm, and the level of physical activity. METHODS: The participants (all volunteers) performed two 6PBRTs, 30 min apart. They were instructed to move as many rings as possible in six minutes. The best test result was selected for data analysis. RESULTS: The sample comprised 104 individuals, all over 30 years of age. Reference values were reported by age bracket. We found that age correlated with 6PBRT results. The number of rings moved was higher in the 30- to 39-year age group than in the > 80-year age group (430.25 ± 77.00 vs. 265.00 ± 65.75), and the difference was significant (p < 0.05). The 6PBRT results showed a weak, positive correlation with the level of physical activity (r = 0.358; p < 0.05) but did not correlate significantly with any other variable studied. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we were able to determine reference values for the 6PBRT in healthy adults in Brazil. There was a correlation between 6PBRT results and age.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it