The modified Borg/6-min walk distance ratio: a method to assess exertional breathlessness and leg discomfort using the 6-min walk test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The 6-min walk test (6MWT) is widely used to assess exercise capacity across chronic health conditions, but is currently not useful to assess symptoms, as the scores do not account for the 6-min walk distance (6MWD). We aimed to 1) develop normative reference equations for breathlessness and leg discomfort intensity expressed as modified Borg (mBorg)/6MWD ratios; and 2) validate the equations in people with COPD. Methods Analysis of people aged ≥40 years who performed two 6MWTs (on a 20-m course) in the Canadian Cohort Obstructive Lung Disease (CanCOLD) study: a healthy cohort (n=291; mean±sdage 67.5±9.4 years; 54% male) with normal 6MWD and lung function, and a COPD cohort (n=156; age 66.2±9.0 years; 56% male; forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1)/forced vital capacity 56.6±8.2%; FEV174.4±18.6% pred). The mBorg score was calculated as the Borg 0–10 category ratio intensity rating of breathlessness or leg discomfort recorded at the end of the 6MWT +1 (range 1–11), to avoid zeros and yield ratios proportional to the symptom score and 6MWD−1. Results Using data from the healthy cohort, sex-specific normative reference equations for breathlessness and leg discomfort mBorg/6MWD ratios were developed using multivariable linear regression, accounting for age, and body mass or body mass index. In the COPD cohort, abnormal breathlessness and leg discomfort (mBorg/6MWD>upper limit of normal) showed strong concurrent validity with worse airflow limitation, Medical Research Council breathlessness and COPD Assessment Test scores. Conclusion Normative references for the mBorg/6MWD ratio are presented to assess breathlessness and leg discomfort responses to the 6MWT in COPD.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".