QTC INTERVAL AND MAXIMAL EXERCISE CORRELATES OVER 10 YEARS IN OLDER TRAINING ADULTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prolonged QT interval is seen with aging and cardiovascular disease states, and may indicate impaired cardiac function. Whether this finding is associated with a limitation to exercise (Ex) capacity, and whether this can be altered with regular ex training among older adults is not known. PURPOSE 1. To determine the association between corrected QT interval length (QTc) and peak Ex METs achieved; and 2. To determine if chronic Ex training alters this association over 10 years in older previously sedentary adults. METHODS 45 older (over age 65) adults (21 males, 24 females) were assessed for prolonged QTc on entry to and yearly for 10 consecutive years Ex training. All were referred for training to improve fitness, and not for cardiovascular diagnostic testing. Subjects were divided into 2 groups – normal (N) and abnormal (A) QTc (> 0.40s for males, and > 0.44s for females). T-tests assessed significant QTc and max METs differences within and between N and A groups at rest – at both baseline (BL) and post-training (PT). RESULTS Of the 45 subjects, 19 had a N QTc, while 26 had a prolonged QTc (42% vs. 58%, respectively). There was no significant difference in BL or PT max METs difference in either group. After training for 10 consecutive years, a significant reduction in QTc duration was seen in the A group (0.45s at BL to 0.42s at PT), p < .05. A significant reduction in Ex capacity (METs) was observed in both N and A groups (9.6 and 9.5 at BL, to 7.3 and 7.5 at PT), p < .05. This reduction in METs was significantly greater in the N group, p < .05. CONCLUSION A prolonged QTc interval was not associated with lower Ex capacity as previous described, while an age-related decrease in Ex capacity over 10 years was seen in both groups. We did observe a greater reduction in Ex capactiy in the N group while training revealed a reduction in QTc only in those with prolonged QTc at BL.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".