The safety, physiological response and repeatability of the incremental shuttle walk test in survivors of COVID-19
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The incremental shuttle walk test (ISWT) may be a valuable tool for measuring exercise tolerance in patients after a hospital admission with COVID-19. However, the safety, physiological response and repeatability of the ISWT are unknown in this cohort. The present study aimed to explore the properties of this test using the Post-Hospital COVID-19 (PHOSP-COVID) study. Methods: Participants performed two ISWTs, with a 30-min rest between tests, at 5 and 12 months post-hospital discharge for COVID-19. Heart rate and fingertip peripheral oxygen saturation were recorded pre- and post-test. Reasons for test termination were noted. Results: ; 967 (60.7%) males) performed an ISWT; two tests were performed by 1034 and 390 participants at the 5- and 12-month visit, respectively. At 5 months post-discharge, six patients (0.4%) had an adverse event and the most common reason contributing to test termination was breathlessness (826 (54.2%) participants). 336/1470 (22.9%) participants experienced exertional desaturation. Distance walked was greater in the second ISWT compared to the first ISWT at 5 and 12 months post-discharge (mean±sd difference: 5 months: 19±94 m; 12 months: 11±80 m; p<0.05), with an intraclass correlation coefficient estimate of 0.96 (95% CI 0.95-0.97) at 5 months and 0.97 (95% CI 0.96-0.97) at 12 months. Conclusions: The ISWT appeared to be safe in this large cohort, supporting use of this field walking test for this population in clinical and research settings. A familiarisation test is recommended, with further study needed to determine the number of familiarisation tests required to achieve acceptable within-day repeatability.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".