Reference Standards for Cardiorespiratory Fitness by Cardiovascular Disease Category and Testing Modality: Data From FRIEND
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The importance of cardiorespiratory fitness for stratifying risk and guiding clinical decisions in patients with cardiovascular disease is well‐established. To optimize the clinical value of cardiorespiratory fitness, normative reference standards are essential. The purpose of this report is to extend previous cardiorespiratory fitness normative standards by providing updated cardiorespiratory fitness reference standards according to cardiovascular disease category and testing modality. Methods and Results The analysis included 15 045 tests (8079 treadmill, 6966 cycle) from FRIEND (Fitness Registry and the Importance of Exercise National Database). Using data from tests conducted January 1, 1974, through March 1, 2021, percentiles of directly measured peak oxygen consumption (VO 2peak ) were determined for each decade from 30 through 89 years of age for men and women with a diagnosis of coronary artery bypass surgery, myocardial infarction, percutaneous coronary intervention, or heart failure. There were significant differences between sex and age groups for VO 2peak ( P <0.001). The mean VO 2peak was 23% higher for men compared with women and VO 2peak decreased by a mean of 7% per decade for both sexes. Among each decade, the mean VO 2peak from treadmill tests was 21% higher than the VO 2peak from cycle tests. Differences in VO 2peak were observed among the age groups in both sexes according to cardiovascular disease category. Conclusions This report provides normative reference standards by cardiovascular disease category for both men and women performing cardiopulmonary exercise testing on a treadmill or cycle ergometer. These updated and enhanced reference standards can assist with patient risk stratification and guide clinical care.
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 | 0.007 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".