MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3020632046 · doi:10.21037/jtd.2020.03.13

Predicting the rate of oxygen consumption during the 3-minute constant-rate stair stepping and shuttle tests in people with COPD

2020· article· en· W3020632046 on OpenAlexafffund
Hayley Lewthwaite, Emily M. Koch, Magnus Ekström, Alan Hamilton, Jean Bourbeau, François Maltais, Benoît Borel, Dennis Jensen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Thoracic Disease · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalInstitut Universitaire de Cardiologie et de Pneumologie de QuébecMcGill University Health CentreBoehringer Ingelheim (Canada)McGill University
FundersDepartment of Education and TrainingCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversité LavalMcGill UniversityGlaxoSmithKline
KeywordsCOPDMedicinePulmonary diseaseLinear regressionLimits of agreementMetabolic ratePhysical therapyStatisticsMathematicsInternal medicineNuclear medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The 3-minute constant-rate stair stepping (3-min CRSST) and constant-speed shuttle tests (3-min CSST) were developed to assess breathlessness in response to a standardized exercise stimulus. Estimating the rate of oxygen consumption (V’O2) during these tests would assist clinicians to relate the stepping/shuttle speeds that elicit breathlessness to daily physical activities with a similar metabolic demand. This study: (I) developed equations to estimate the V’O2 of these tests in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD); and (II) compared the newly developed and American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) metabolic equations for estimating the V’O2 of these tests. Methods: This study was a retrospective analysis of people with COPD who completed a 3-min CRSST (n=98) or 3-min CSST (n=69). Multivariate linear regression estimated predictors (alpha <0.05) of V’O2 to construct COPD-specific metabolic equations. The mean squared error (MSE) of the COPD-specific and ACSM equations was calculated and compared. Bland-Altman analyses evaluated level of agreement between measured and predicted V’O2 using each equation; limits of agreement (LoA) and patterns of bias were compared. Results: Stepping rate/shuttle speed and body mass were identified as significant predictors of V’O2. The MSE of the COPD-specific equations was 0.05 L·min−1 for both tests. Mean difference between measured and predicted V’O2 was 0.00 L·min−1 (95% LoA −0.46, 0.46) and 0.00 L·min−1 (95% LoA −0.44, 0.44) for the 3-min CRSST and 3-min CSST, respectively. For the ACSM metabolic equations, the MSE was 0.10 L·min−1 and 0.18 L·min−1 for the 3-min CRSST and 3-min CSST, respectively. The ACSM metabolic equations underestimated V’O2 of the 3-min CRSST by −0.18 L·min−1 (95% LoA −0.68, 0.32), and overestimated V’O2 of the 3-min CSST by 0.35 L·min−1 (95% LoA −0.14, 0.84). Conclusions: This study presents metabolic equations to predict V’O2 of the 3-min CRSST and 3-min CSST for people with COPD that are more accurate than the ACSM metabolic equations.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.395

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.286 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Thoracic DiseaseSame topicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchFrench-language works237,207