Physiological correlates of pulmonary function in children with cystic fibrosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Although peak aerobic capacity (VO(2peak)) has been linked to outcome in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF), measuring is time consuming, and requires expensive equipment and expertise that is not readily available in all centers. Other fitness parameters such as peak anaerobic power, measures of power and strength may be simpler to deliver in the clinic. The relationship between these measures and established outcomes such as forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV(1)) and peak aerobic power (VO(2peak)) in CF remains unclear. Therefore we evaluated (a) aerobic fitness, (b) anaerobic fitness, and (c) upper and lower body muscle strength to determine their relationship to FEV(1) and VO(2peak) in children with CF. METHODS: Eighty-two patients (7-18 years) with CF (40 female) from the CF clinic at The Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto performed a maximal incremental cycling test to exhaustion. Anaerobic power (W) for 10 and 30 sec cycling trials as well as vertical jump (VJ) and hand grip strength (HG) were compared to FEV(1) and VO(2peak). RESULTS: Absolute VO(2peak) (R(2) = 0.16, P < 0.001), anaerobic power (R(2) = 0.21, P < 0.001), and hand grip strength (R(2) = 0.10, P = 0.003) were significantly correlated to lung function whereas measures of explosive lower body strength (VJ) were not. Anaerobic power (R(2) = 0.16, P = 0.001) and hand grip strength (R(2) = 0.08, P = 0.01) were related to VO(2peak). Vertical jump was correlated with VO(2peak) (R(2) = 0.29, P < 0.001) but not FEV(1). CONCLUSIONS: Simple fitness tests such as hand grip strength and anaerobic cycle tests may be useful indicators of lung health and fitness.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".