Development of Quarter-Mile Walk Tests to Estimate Aerobic Fitness in Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Field-based tests of aerobic fitness that can be administered quickly and do not require maximal effort are desirable. The purpose was to develop and validate quarter-mile walk tests for 10–13-year-olds. Participants (N = 59) walked one mile on two different days. Walk times, heart rates, body mass, physical activity, and aerobic fitness were assessed. Multiple regression was used to develop models to estimate VO2max. Quarter-mile walk models provided estimates of aerobic fitness that were similar in accuracy to previously published walk tests. The recommended model that balances accuracy and ease of administration was: VO2max = 119.691–(13.744*quarter-mile walk time [min])–(0.168*heart rate), R=.73, SEE = 6.84 mL·kg−1·min−1. Walk times, heart rates, and estimated VO2max values were highly reliable. The walk tests developed provide valid estimates of VO2max, are easy to administer, and could be particularly useful for unmotivated or overweight children when this equation is confirmed with a larger sample in group testing conditions.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".