The 6-Minute Pegboard and Ring Test (6PBRT) for Evaluation of Upper Limbs Functional Capacity in Hemodialysis Patients: A Validation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To verify the 6-minute pegboard and ring test (6PBRT) validity for functional evaluation in hemodialysis patients and upper limb (UL) functional capacity by the 6PBRT. Method: In a cross-sectional study, patients on hemodialysis three times a week for at least 6 months performed the 6PBRT as well as handgrip strength and endurance. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) by KDQOL-SF questionnaire, Human Activities Profile (HAP), and level of social participation were also evaluated. Convergent validity was verified by correlation analysis. Results: Thirty-seven individuals were evaluated, predominantly adult males (67.6%). The mean age was 50.1 (SD 16.4) years old. The average number of rings moved during the 6PBRT was 306.2 (SD 68.2). The 6PBRT correlated with handgrip strength ( r = 0.37; p = 0.025), the domain “Functional Capacity” ( r = 0.49; p = 0.008) of the KDQOL-SF questionnaire, and with HAP score ( r = 0.43; p = 0.01). There was no correlation between handgrip endurance ( r = 0.18; p = 0.281) and social participation ( r = −0.12; p = 0.48). Heart rate and dyspnea (modified Borg scale) increased by 13.3 bpm (95% CI: 9.8, 16.8) and 0.5 points (95% CI: 0.1, 0.9) during the 6PBRT. Conclusions: The 6PBRT is associated with UL strength, physical aspects related to HRQoL, and daily activity level, which accounts for its construct validity. Therefore, the test has potential value in the functional evaluation of the ULs in hemodialysis patients. However, in this population, the level of social participation seems to depend on other factors than the functional capacity of the UL itself.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".