Trial reportPloS one2017
Proof of concept of a 45-second cardiorespiratory fitness self-test for coronary artery disease patients based on accelerometry.
Trial report in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- The UP150: A Multifactorial Environmental Intervention to Promote Employee Physical and Mental Well-Being.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Trial
- The Perception of Effort as a Basis for Improving Physical Efficacy and Efficiency in Italian Military School Students.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- UP150 Project: A Longitudinal Analysis of Active Lifestyles in the Complex Working System.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Submaximal Exercise Testing in Cardiovascular Rehabilitation Settings (BEST Study).Frontiers in physiology · 2019Article
- A 45-Second Self-Test for Cardiorespiratory Fitness: Heart Rate-Based Estimation in Healthy Individuals.PloS one · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) provides important diagnostic and prognostic information. It is measured directly via laboratory maximal testing or indirectly via submaximal protocols making use of predictor parameters such as submaximal [Formula: see text], heart rate, workload, and perceived exertion. We have established an innovative methodology, which can provide CRF prediction based only on body motion during a periodic movement. Thirty healthy subjects (40% females, 31.3 ± 7.8 yrs, 25.1 ± 3.2 BMI) and eighteen male coronary artery disease (CAD) (56.6 ± 7.4 yrs, 28.7 ± 4.0 BMI) patients performed a [Formula: see text] test on a cycle ergometer as well as a 45 second squatting protocol at a fixed tempo (80 bpm). A tri-axial accelerometer was used to monitor movements during the squat exercise test. Three regression models were developed to predict CRF based on subject characteristics and a new accelerometer-derived feature describing motion decay. For each model, the Pearson correlation coefficient and the root mean squared error percentage were calculated using the leave-one-subject-out cross-validation method (rcv, RMSEcv). The model built with all healthy individuals' data showed an rcv = 0.68 and an RMSEcv = 16.7%. The CRF prediction improved when only healthy individuals with normal to lower fitness (CRF<40 ml/min/kg) were included, showing an rcv = 0.91 and RMSEcv = 8.7%. Finally, our accelerometry-based CRF prediction CAD patients, the majority of whom taking β-blockers, still showed high accuracy (rcv = 0.91; RMSEcv = 9.6%). In conclusion, motion decay and subject characteristics could be used to predict CRF in healthy people as well as in CAD patients taking β-blockers, accurately. This method could represent a valid alternative for patients taking β-blockers, but needs to be further validated in a larger population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.