Physical activity in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: Longitudinal change and minimal clinically important difference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Reference values of physical activity to interpret longitudinal changes are not available in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). This study aimed to define the minimal clinical important difference (MCID) of longitudinal changes in physical activity in patients with IPF. METHODS: Using accelerometry, physical activity (steps per day) was measured and compared at baseline and 6-months follow-up in patients with IPF. We calculated MCID of daily step count using multiple anchor-based and distribution-based methods. Forced vital capacity and 6-minute walk distance were applied as anchors in anchor-based methods. Effect size and standard error of measurement were used to calculate MCID in distribution-based methods. RESULTS: = .031). MCID calculated by anchor-based and distribution-based methods ranged from 570-1358 steps. CONCLUSION: Daily step count significantly declined over 6-months in patients with IPF. MCID calculated by multiple anchor-based and distribution-based methods was 570 to 1358 steps/day. These findings contribute to interpretation of the longitudinal changes of physical activity that will assist its use as a clinical and research outcome in patients with IPF.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".