Cut-off values of one-minute sit-to-stand test for determining physical performance in mild-post-COVID-19 individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background This study aims to establish cutoff values for the one-minute sit-to-stand test (1STST) to predict physical performance in mild-post- coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) individuals and to compare the 1STST with the 6-minute walk test (6MWT) in assessing hemodynamic response and to explore the correlation between 1STST, 6MWT, and muscle strength, including leg and respiratory muscle strength. Methods A cross-sectional study of 93 participants with mild post-COVID-19 symptoms was conducted. Sociodemographic and anthropometric data were collected, and pulmonary function, as well as respiratory and quadriceps muscle strength, were evaluated. Functional capacity was assessed using the 6MWT and 1STST. Additionally, hemodynamic responses, fatigue, and dyspnea were measured before and after each test. Results The cutoff for the 1STST in mild post-COVID-19 individuals was ≥29 repetitions, with an AUC of 0.84, sensitivity of 80.52%, and specificity of 75.00%. The 1STST resulted in higher heart rate, systolic blood pressure, and dyspnea compared to the 6MWT, and showed a significant moderate correlation with the 6MWT (r = 0.532, p < 0.0001) and weak correlations with leg strength and respiratory muscle strength. Conclusion A cutoff of less than 29 repetitions on the 1STST indicates functional impairment in mild post-COVID-19 cases, as it induces greater physiological stress than the 6MWT and correlates with muscle strength, making it crucial for rehabilitation assessment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".