Remote vs. In-person Physical Function Assessment in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Rationale: Pulmonary Rehabilitation (PR) is proven to be effective when delivered remotely. Further focus is needed on the accuracy and reliability of physical function tests to allow personalized and accurate exercise prescription and evaluation. Our study objectives were to 1) assess the agreement and concordance between in-person and remote physical function assessment protocols in individuals with COPD and 2) assess remote protocol test-retest reliability. Methods: Physical function was measured remotely and in-person in all participants using four standardized exercise tests (Timed up-and-go (TUG), 1-minute sit-to-stand (1-min STS), short physical performance battery (SPPB) and the 6-minute walk test (6MWT) performed on a 10-m course. Remote tests were conducted through a web-based videoconference application. The first remote session and the in-person session were done on two consecutive days, at the same time of the day. Participants were randomized to begin either remotely or in-person, and the order of physical function tests were randomized each session. The first and second remote assessment sessions were performed within one week. Results: Twenty participants completed the study. Mean age was 71.9± 8.7 years and FEV1% was 53.7± 22%. Bland-Altman analyses revealed a mean between-method difference of -0.52 seconds (limits of agreement (LoA): -3.59 to 2.55) for the TUG, 0.32 repetitions (LoA: -5.49 to 6.12) for 1-min STS, 0.6 points (LoA: -1.81 to 3.01) for the SPPB, and -25.17m (LoA: -79.59 to 29.26 ) for the 6MWT. The mean difference between the first and second remote assessments was -0.25 seconds (LoA: -2.86 to 2.36) for the TUG, 0.33 repetitions (LoA: -3.35 to 4.02) for 1-min STS, 0.47 points (LoA: -2.17 to 3.12) for the SPPB, and 17.14m (LoA: -22.24 to 56.53) for the 6MWT. The Spearman rank correlations for between method-difference and between the first and second remote sessions ranged from 0.76-0.99 (all were statistically significant). Conclusions: None of the test average discrepancies reached the respective minimal clinically important differences, suggesting good agreement between the in-person and remote protocols. The concordance between method-difference was strong. Remote session test-retest reliability was excellent.
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 | 0.011 | 0.019 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".