MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309830732 · doi:10.29390/cjrt-2022-045

Impacts of surgical mask wearing on cardiopulmonary fitness using a six-minute walk test among older adults with hypertension

2022· article· en· W4309830732 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Patchareeya Amput, Sirima Wongphon

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Respiratory Therapy · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPressure Ulcer Prevention and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersThailand Science Research and InnovationUniversity of Phayao
KeywordsMedicineHeart rateBlood pressureRespiratory rateOxygen saturationExertionPhysical therapyAnesthesiaCardiologyInternal medicineOxygen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background This study aims to investigate the impacts of surgical mask wearing on cardiopulmonary fitness using a six-minute walk test (6MWT) among older adults with hypertension. Methods The 45 older adults with hypertension volunteers were recruited and randomized into a no mask wearing condition and a surgical mask wearing condition. All volunteers were investigated through submaximal exercise testing using a 6MWT. Cardiopulmonary parameters were measured before and after performing a 6MWT. Results The results indicate post performance on the 6MWT for both the with and without surgical mask conditions significantly increased systolic blood pressure, heart rate, respiratory rate, and oxygen saturation (SpO~2~) when compared to before performing a 6MWT. However, surgical masks resulted in no differences to systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, heart rate, respiratory rate, SpO~2~, and 6MWT distance when compared to no masks. In contrast, the surgical mask condition significantly increased perceived exertion when compared with the no mask condition (p \< 0.05). Conclusion This study indicates that surgical masks did not have an impact on cardiopulmonary fitness in older adults with hypertension.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.410
Threshold uncertainty score0.952

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.267 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Respiratory TherapySame topicPressure Ulcer Prevention and ManagementFrench-language works237,207