Reliability of exercise testing and functional activity questionnaires in children with juvenile arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the reliability of formal exercise testing and the reliability of functional and activity questionnaires in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). METHODS: Children with JIA of any subtype ages 8-16 years who were recruited to a randomized trial comparing different exercise therapies participated in 2 preintervention sessions of exercise testing 2-6 weeks apart. Exercise testing included 1) submaximal oxygen uptake (VO(2submax)), 2) peak VO(2) (VO(2peak)), and 3) anaerobic power using modified Wingate tests (W(ant)). Two physical function questionnaires (the Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire [C-HAQ] and Revised Activity Scale for Kids [ASK]) and 1 daily physical activity questionnaire (the Habitual Activity Estimation Scale [HAES]) were also completed at these times. Test-retest reliability was assessed using type 3, intrarater intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC(3,1)) and Bland and Altman plots were used to determine limits of agreement. RESULTS: Data were available for 74 patients (58 girls). VO(2submax), VO(2peak), and W(ant) demonstrated high reliability (ICC(3,1) 0.82, 0.91, and 0.94, respectively). C-HAQ and ASK questionnaires also had very high reliability (ICC(3,1) 0.82 and 0.91, respectively). The HAES demonstrated low reliability for total activity score (ICC(3,1) 0.15) and moderate reliability when the number of very active hours was analyzed separately (ICC(3,1) 0.59). CONCLUSION: Results of this investigation suggest that exercise testing and functional questionnaires in children with JIA are consistent and reliable. Reliability of the HAES total score was poor, but moderate when the very active hours subscale score was used.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".