A Comparison of Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing and Shuttle Walk Test in Older Adults With Amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) has been positively associated with brain volumes and health in older adults and negatively associated with dementia and dementia mortality. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) is a gold-standard test for evaluating CRF and for exercise prescription but requires specialized equipment and is time- and resource-intensive. More feasible and valid options for evaluation of CRF are needed. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the validity and relationship of shuttle walk test (SWT) distance with peak oxygen consumption (VO2peak) from cycle ergometer-based CPET in persons with amnestic mild cognitive impairment. METHODS: This study is a cross-sectional analysis of the baseline data (n = 80) who completed both CPET and SWT from the ACT (aerobic exercise and cognitive training) Trial. Data were analyzed with simple and multiple linear regression. RESULTS: The study sample was 74.1 (5.7) years old, had 45.0% female representation, and scored 23.2 (2.0) on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment. SWT was positively correlated with VO2peak (r = .57, p < .01). When controlling for age, sex, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, and body mass index, SWT distance remained significantly and positively associated with VO2peak, and explained 6% of the variance in VO2peak (Cohen's ƒ2 = 0.06). CONCLUSION: This is the first study to investigate the relationship of SWT distance and CPET VO2peak in older adults with amnestic mild cognitive impairment and shows that SWT distance significantly predicts VO2peak. Significance/Implications: Preliminary evidence supports the use of the SWT as a valid assessment of CRF in persons with amnestic mild cognitive impairment.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".