Assessment of exercise capacity and respiratory muscle oxygenation in healthy children and children with congenital heart diseases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Muscular and cardiorespiratory dysfunction contributes to exercise intolerance. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to characterize the cardiopulmonary response andrespiratory muscle oxygenation of children with congenital heart diseases (CHD) when compared with those of healthy children. Twelve children with CHD in New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II or III, and 14 healthy children participated in the study. All subjects performed conventional spirographic measurements and a cardiopulmonary exercise test on a cycle ergometer. Oxygen uptake (VO(2)), carbon dioxide production (VCO(2)), minute ventilation (VE), heart rate (HR), and power output were measured. Oxygenation of respiratory muscles was assessed by near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) during exercise and recovery. Pulmonary function was normal and no significant difference was found between groups. At rest, CHD patients had cardiorespiratory variables comparable with those of the healthy group. At submaximal intensity (ventilatory threshold) and at peak exercise, power output, HR, VO(2), VCO(2), and VE were significantly reduced (p < 0.01) in CHD patients. Respiratory muscles deoxygenated during exercise in both groups. However, deoxygenation was more pronounced in the CHD group than in the healthy children from an intensity of 40% up to exhaustion. Likewise, children with CHD showed a slower recovery of oxygenation than healthy children (113.4 +/- 17.5 vs. 74.6 +/- 13.0 s; p < 0.001). Compared with healthy children, these results demonstrated that children with CHD have reduced performance and present a defected exercise capacity. Children with CHD showed a more pronounced decrease of respiratory muscle oxygenation and slower recovery of oxygen kinetics.
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".