Comparison of the 6-Min Propulsion and Arm Crank Ergometer Tests to Assess Aerobic Fitness in Manual Wheelchair Users With a Spinal Cord Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The 6-Min Manual Wheelchair Propulsion Test is proposed to easily and rapidly assess aerobic fitness among long-term (≥3 mos) manual wheelchair users with spinal cord injury. However, aerobic responses to this test have not been established. This study aimed (1) to characterize aerobic responses during the 6-Min Manual Wheelchair Propulsion Test, (2) to establish parallel reliability between the 6-Min Manual Wheelchair Propulsion Test and the Maximal Arm Crank Ergometer Test, and (3) to quantify the strength of association between the total distance traveled during the 6-Min Manual Wheelchair Propulsion Test and peak oxygen consumption. DESIGN: Twenty manual wheelchair users with a spinal cord injury completed both tests. Aerobic parameters were measured before, during, and after the tests. Main outcome measures were peak oxygen consumption and total distance traveled. RESULTS: Progressive cardiorespiratory responses, consistent with guidelines for exercise testing, were observed during both tests. Similar peak oxygen consumption values were obtained during both tests (6-Min Manual Wheelchair Propulsion Test: 20.2 ± 4.9 ml/kg·min; Maximal Arm Crank Ergometer Test: 20.4 ± 5.0 ml/kg·min), were highly correlated (r = 0.92, P < 0.001), and had a good agreement (mean absolute difference = 0.21, 95% confidence interval = -0.70 to 1.11, P = 0.639). The peak oxygen consumption and total distance traveled (mean = 636.6 ± 56.9 m) during the 6-Min Manual Wheelchair Propulsion Test were highly correlated (r = 0.74, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The 6-Min Manual Wheelchair Propulsion Test induces progressive aerobic responses consistent with guidelines for exercise testing and can be used to efficiently estimate aerobic fitness in manual wheelchair users with a spinal cord injury. TO CLAIM CME CREDITS: Complete the self-assessment activity and evaluation online at http://www.physiatry.org/JournalCME CME OBJECTIVES: Upon completion of this article, the reader should be able to: (1) Explain how to administer the Six-Minute Manual Wheelchair Propulsion Test in long-term manual wheelchair users with a spinal cord injury; (2) Contrast how the workload is developed between the Six-Minute Manual Wheelchair Propulsion Test and the Maximal Arm Crank Ergometry Test and recognize how these differences may affect physiological responses; and (3) Explain why caution is advised regarding the use of the Six-Minute Manual Wheelchair Propulsion Test if aiming to estimate aerobic fitness. LEVEL: Advanced ACCREDITATION: The Association of Academic Physiatrists is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians.The Association of Academic Physiatrists designates this Journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1.0 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)™. Physicians should only claim credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".