Aerobic and Lung Performance in Premature Children With and Without Chronic Lung Disease of Prematurity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study intended to identify pulmonary and exercise-related effects of chronic lung disease of infancy (CLD) versus prematurity (PRE) without CLD in children 5 to 7 years old who were born prematurely (24-30 weeks of gestation) with very low and extremely low birthweight of 500 to 1500 g (VLBW, ELBW). SUBJECTS: Seventeen CLD and 14 PRE were compared with 24 term controls (CON). The premature children had no overt manifestations of a neuromuscular disease. METHODS: Pulmonary function at rest and following exercise, and aerobic exercise performance were measured. RESULTS: Peak [latin capital V with dot above]O2 and maximal aerobic power were not different among the groups, but O2 uptake at a given mechanical power was higher in the CLD than in PRE and in CON (P < 0.05). At rest, forced vital capacity was significantly lower in CLD than in PRE (P < 0.05) and CON (P < 0.0005), and FEV1 and FEF25-75 were lower in CLD than CON (P < 0.0005 and P < 0.005, respectively). Exercise-induced bronchoconstriction (EIB) was more prevalent among the 2 premature groups (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our children 5 to 7 years old born at VLBW or ELBW, with or without CLD, have some degree of pulmonary dysfunction at rest and following exercise and a higher prevalence of EIB with no reduction in maximal aerobic exercise performance. The findings suggest that the pulmonary limitations are associated with low birthweight even in the absence of CLD. The higher O2 uptake at a given mechanical power in the CLD group may cause early fatigability during prolonged exercise, even when aerobic performance is normal.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".