Prescrição de Exercício Aeróbio na Reabilitação Cardíaca Baseada na Frequência Cardíaca dos Estágios do Teste da Fala e do Teste de Caminhada de 6 Minutos
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although the Talk Test (TT) is a reliable and low-cost test, its use for aerobic exercise prescription is still limited. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the heart rate (HR) in the stages of the TT and at the peak of the 6-minute walk test (6MWT) as a parameter to prescribe aerobic exercise compared with HR at the first and second ventilatory thresholds (VT1 and VT2) of cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET). METHODS: Individuals with cardiovascular disease attended three assessment days: 1) anamnesis and CPET; 2) 6MWT; and 3) TT. One-way repeated measures ANOVA or Friedman's test were used to compare HR at VT1 and VT2 with HR at TT stages: last positive (TT+), first equivocal (TT±), and negative (TT-), and at the peak of the 6MWT. Pearson's or Spearman's test assessed correlations between HR at VTs, TT stages, and 6MWT. Statistical significance was set at 5%. RESULTS: The study included 22 cardiac patients (13 men, 61 ± 8 years). HR at VT1 was similar to HR at TT+ (p = 0.987) and TT± (p = 0.154), and moderately correlated with TT+ (r = 0.479, p = 0.024). HR at VT2 was similar to TT- (p = 0.383), with a strong correlation (r = 0.757, p < 0.001). HR at the peak of the 6MWT was significantly different from HR at TT+, TT±, and VT1 (p = 0.001, p = 0.005, and p < 0.001, respectively) but similar to TT- (p = 0.68). CONCLUSIONS: HR at TT+ and TT- reflect HR at VT1 and VT2, respectively, differently from 6MWT, which was similar only to VT2. TT may be an objective test to assist aerobic exercise prescription in cardiac rehabilitation.
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 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 | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".