Aerobic Capacity, Strength, Flexibility, and Activity Level in Unimpaired Extremely Low Birth Weight (≤800 g) Survivors at 17 Years of Age Compared With Term-Born Control Subjects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare aerobic capacity, strength, flexibility, and activity level in extremely low birth weight (ELBW) adolescents at 17 years of age with term-born control subjects. METHODS: Fifty-three ELBW teens of birth weight <or=800 g were assessed at 17.3 years (16.3-19.7 years; birth weight: 720 g [520-800 g]; gestation: 26 weeks [23-29 weeks]) along with term-born control subjects (n = 31) at age 17.8 years (16.5-19.0 years; birth weight: 3506 g [3068-4196 g]; gestation: weeks 40 [39-42 weeks]). ELBW and control teens were assessed by a pediatric physiotherapist and completed components of the Canadian Physical Activity, Fitness and Lifestyle Appraisal and a self-assessment fitness and activity questionnaire. Continuous data were analyzed using MANOVA (group, gender) followed by t tests; categorical data were analyzed using the chi(2) test. RESULTS: ELBW teens had lower aerobic capacity, grip strength, leg power, and vertical jump; could do fewer push-ups; had less abdominal strength as measured by curl-ups; had less lower back flexibility; and had tighter hamstrings. ELBW teens reported less previous and current sports participation, lower physical activity level, and poorer coordination compared with term-born control subjects. ELBW teens were also found to have more difficulty with maintenance of rhythm and cadence. Although ELBW teens rated themselves lower on all measures of sporting activity, they were as happy with their level of fitness as the control subjects. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with term-born control subjects, there are significant differences in motor performance in unimpaired ELBW survivors in late adolescence, reflected in aerobic capacity, strength, endurance, flexibility, and activity level. We conclude that these differences in fitness and physical activity are related to the interaction of effects of premature birth on the motor system together with a more inactive lifestyle. These findings have potential implications for later adult health problems.
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".