The effects of vigorous exercise training on physical function in children with arthritis: A randomized, controlled, SINGLE‐BLINDED trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the effectiveness of high-intensity aerobic training compared with low-intensity training in terms of energy cost of locomotion, peak oxygen uptake, peak power, and self-reported physical function in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). METHODS: Eighty children with JIA, ages 8-16 years, were enrolled in a randomized, single-blind controlled trial. Both groups participated in a 12-week, 3-times-weekly training program consisting of high-intensity aerobics in the experimental group and qigong in the control group. Subjects underwent exercise testing measuring submaximal oxygen uptake at 3 km/hour (VO(2submax)) as the primary outcome, maximal oxygen uptake, and peak power at the beginning and end of the program. Physical function was measured using the Child Health Assessment Questionnaire (C-HAQ). RESULTS: The exercise program was well tolerated in both groups. There was no difference in VO(2submax) or any other exercise testing measures between the groups through the study period and no indication of improvement. Both groups showed significant improvements in C-HAQ with no difference between the groups. Adherence was higher in the control group than the experimental group. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that activity programs with or without an aerobic training component are safe and may result in an important improvement in physical function. The intensity of aerobic training did not seem to provide any additional benefits, but higher adherence in the qigong program may suggest that less intensive regimens are easier for children with JIA to comply with, and provide a degree of benefit equivalent to more intensive programs.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".