6MWT and ISWT: Levels of agreement between different in-person and remote testing procedures in lung transplant candidates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rationale: Remote field-based walk tests may provide an alternative method of assessing exercise capacity for tele-rehabilitation programs. Objectives: Evaluate the level of agreement in distance walked between in-person x remote 6-minute walk tests (6MWT) and incremental shuttle walk test (ISWT). Methods: Adult lung transplant (LTx) candidates underwent 4 visits: i) an in-person standard 6MWT (30 m corridor) and a treadmill 6MWT, ii) a remote 6MWT (10m corridor), iii) two in-person standard ISWTs (10m corridor) and iv) a remote ISWT (10m corridor). A medical-grade oximeter measured heart rate and oxygen saturation each minute. A Bland-Altman analysis was performed. Results: 18 LTx candidates completed all visits (4 (22%) women; 62±10 years; 12 (67%) ILD; 6 (33%) COPD; exertional FiO2 0.43±0.1). There was agreement between the ISWTs but not the 6MWTs Figure 1. Greater walking distances were achieved with standard procedures: in-person 6MWT x treadmill 6MWT (346±72 x 273±115, p=0.001), in-person x remote 6MWT (346±72 x 289±87, p=0.001), and in-person x remote ISWT (217±57 x 197±63, p=0.07). Conclusion: Lower distances on the remote and treadmill 6MWTs were likely associated with different track lengths and walking surfaces. Despite an agreement between in-person and remote ISWT, a mean of 19 m is clinically relevant and should be considered when repeating this test in a different setting.
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 | 0.009 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".