Simultaneous Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing and Echocardiography for Investigation of Cardiopulmonary Dysfunction in Outpatients: Protocol for a Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cardiopulmonary dysfunction is a complex process with a broad range of etiologies. Investigations performed either at rest or those that only assess the function of a single organ (heart or lungs) are often insufficient. A simultaneous cardiopulmonary exercise test with stress echocardiography is a new approach to assessing cardiopulmonary dysfunction as it provides anatomical and functional imaging simultaneously while under increasing stress. To date, the application of cardiopulmonary exercise test-stress echocardiography (CPET-SE) has been broad and without structure, and its effect on patient outcomes is unclear. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this scoping review is to explore and analyze the evidence regarding the role of simultaneous CPET-SE in investigating cardiopulmonary dysfunction in outpatients. It will include any published study in which adult (older than or equal to 18 years of age) patients have completed a CPET-SE for the investigation of cardiopulmonary dysfunction. METHODS: This review will follow the Arksey and O'Malley framework, supported by the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews. It will use the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist. Data sources will include MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane (including reviews, trials, and protocols) electronic databases, with no date range defined. The search will be limited to the English language with no restrictions regarding pathology. Secondary references of the included sources will also be assessed by a hand search for suitability. A 2-person title-abstract screen and data charting process will be used. Independent experts will be used for consultation including an academic librarian and clinicians. The Covidence software will be used for article screening. RESULTS: This scoping review will provide a unified and detailed description of the applications of CPET-SE in investigating cardiopulmonary dysfunction. This will provide a platform for future research harnessing this investigatory method. The results will be presented in both tabular and graphical formats to ensure clarity. The results of this scoping review will be submitted to a relevant peer-reviewed academic journal for publication. CONCLUSIONS: The CPET-SE is a powerful tool for investigating cardiopulmonary dysfunction but remains in its infancy with a patchwork approach to indications, data reporting, and interpretation. This scoping review will unify the literature and provide a platform for future researchers and the development of a comprehensive application guideline. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework; https://osf.io/98r3e. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/52076.
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 | 0.075 | 0.091 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.017 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.069 | 0.011 |
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".