Limitations
DISEASE
In addition to the limitations mentioned in the previous paragraphs, we must recognize the high proportion of valuations missing or excluded from the analysis, which may have adversely influenced the diagnostic performance achieved by the models developed. Thus, we must accept the possibility of a nonnegligible selection bias in the final sample available for analysis. This limitation, along with the modest sample size of our study, prevented us from delving deeper into certain aspects of the analysis and interpretation of the results. We were unable to perform analyses on specific subgroups (e.g., the subgroup of patients with both conditions in a decompensated state), identify phenotypes of the evaluated conditions, or compare the diagnostic performance of the models between different evaluations (e.g., V1–V2 vs. V1–V3).We also emphasize that the conditions in which the assessments were performed were controlled (a specific protocol of walking and recovery was followed), and evaluations in more “real” conditions are still pending. Finally, although the high proportion of evaluations in the decompensated phase allowed us to enhance model development, this proportion was considerably higher than that in the real world (in usual conditions, most patients are in the compensated phase of their disease); therefore, a compensated/decompensated phase proportion closer to that in the real world should be considered in future studies to avoid a high false-positive rate precluding implementation in clinical practice.