Application and Measurement Properties of the Talk Test in Cardiopulmonary Patients: A Systematic Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The talk test (TT) evaluates the exercise intensity by measuring speech comfort level during aerobic exercise. There are several application protocols available to assess individuals with cardiopulmonary diseases. However, the measurement properties of the TT were not systematically reviewed yet. Methods: A systematic review was developed, registered (CRD420181068930), and reported according to PRISMA Statement. Randomized clinical trials, cross-sectional studies, or series cases were identified through multiple databases and were selected if they presented concomitant speech provocation and an exercise test. Included studies were evaluated based on methodological quality (adapted New Castle-Ottawa Scale), descriptive quality (STROBE Statement), and risk of bias (COSMIN bias risk scale). Results: Ten studies were included. Seven studies presented moderate to high quality and the majority presented good scores according to the STROBE statement. Four hundred and fourteen subjects performed the TT, the majority being patients with coronary artery disease. The test validity was supported by the included studies. Talk Test reliability was considered satisfactory, although only one study presented an adequate reliability analysis. The studies found a correlation between the last positive stage of the TT with the first ventilatory threshold. Workload, oxygen uptake, and heart rate in the last positive stage of the TT were not different from the same parameters related to the first ventilatory threshold. Conclusions: The evidence indicates that the TT is suitable as an alternative tool for the assessment and prescription of exercise in individuals with cardiovascular diseases. The stage when the individual is still able to speak comfortably is suggested as the intensity for aerobic exercise prescription. As there is still no well-defined and fully explored TT protocol, caution is required when interpreting the TT results.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it