Anaerobic‐to‐aerobic power ratio in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the anaerobic-to-aerobic power ratio in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) compared with healthy peers. METHODS: Sixty-two patients with JIA (mean +/- SD age 11.9 +/- 2.1 years, range 7.2-15.9 years) with varying severity of disease and 50 healthy children (mean +/- SD age 12.1 +/- 2.1, range 8.4-15.9 years) participated in this study. Anaerobic power was measured using the Wingate Anaerobic Exercise Test. Aerobic power was measured using a cardiopulmonary exercise test. The power ratio was calculated as the ratio between the anaerobic mechanical power and aerobic mechanical power in watts. RESULTS: Mean +/- SD anaerobic-to-aerobic power ratio and peak anaerobic-to-aerobic ratios in children with JIA were 1.98 +/- 0.51 and 3.28 +/- 1.15, respectively. Compared with healthy children these differences were not statistically significant (P = 0.52 and P = 0.99, respectively). The differences in these ratios were not statistically significant when corrected for age, height, and body mass. Statistical analyses showed no significant difference between disease-onset types of JIA for mean anaerobic-to-aerobic power ratio and peak anaerobic-to-aerobic ratio, respectively. Furthermore, there was no significant difference in the development of the power ratios between children with JIA and healthy controls, or between girls and boys. CONCLUSION: This cross-sectional study suggests that the development of the anaerobic-to-aerobic power ratio is not statistically different in children with JIA compared with healthy peers. Exercise training of the anaerobic capacity through interval training, along with aerobic exercise training, seems warranted in the exercise therapy programs of children with JIA.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".