Validation and Cardiorespiratory Response of the 1-Min Sit-to-Stand Test in Interstitial Lung Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the 1-min sit-to-stand test (1STS) test-retest reliability and construct validity and its associated cardiorespiratory response in comparison to the 6-min walk test (6MWT) and symptom-limited cycling cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET) in people with interstitial lung disease (ILD). METHODS: Fifteen participants with ILD performed two 1STS tests, a 6MWT and a CPET. The three tests were administered on three separate visits, and cardiorespiratory parameters were continuously recorded during the tests. RESULTS: The number of repetitions during both 1STS tests was 22 ± 4 and 22 ± 4 (mean difference of 0.53 ± 2.00 repetitions, P = 0.32) with an intraclass correlation of 0.937 (95% confidence interval, 0.811-0.979]) and a minimal detectable change of 2.9 repetitions. The number of 1STS repetitions was highly correlated with the 6MWT distance (r = 0.823, P < 0.001) and with the peak cycling power output expressed in % predicted values (r = 0.706, P < 0.003). Oxygen consumption (V˙O2) peak during the 1STS reached 83% and 78% of V˙O2 peak during 6MWT and CPET, respectively. Peak 1STS HR, minute ventilation (V˙E,), V˙O2 values, as well as nadir SpO2 were achieved during the recovery phase of the test, whereas peak 6MWT and CPET HR, V˙E, V˙O2 and nadir SpO2 always occurred at the end of the test. The three tests elicited a similar fall in SpO2 ranging between 8% and 12%. Symptom scores after the 1STS were similar to those seen at the end of the 6MWT but lower than those of CPET. CONCLUSIONS: The 1STS showed excellent test-retest reliability in patients with ILD in whom it elicited a substantial, but submaximal cardiorespiratory response. Our data also support the construct validity of the 1STS to assess functional exercise capacity in patients with ILD and to detect exercise-induced O2 desaturation.
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 | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".