Predicting the rate of oxygen consumption during the 3-minute constant-rate stair stepping and shuttle tests in people with COPD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".