MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2188953905 · doi:10.1123/pes.23.3.303

Optimizing the Wingate Anaerobic Cycling Test for Youth With Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis

2011· article· en· W2188953905 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Exercise Science · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutoimmune and Inflammatory Disorders Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityMcMaster Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWingate testAnaerobic exerciseJuvenileCyclingArthritisPhysical therapyMedicineBody weightMathematicsPhysical medicine and rehabilitationInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Wingate Anaerobic Test (WAnT) can assess muscle function in youth with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). Our objective was to compare peak power (PP) and mean power (MP) when the WAnT is performed with a standard vs. an optimized braking force. Eight patients with JIA between the ages of 8 and 18 participated in two sessions. Optimal braking force was determined with a series of 15-s force-velocity tests performed against braking forces ranging from 3.5 to 8.5% of body weight. Participants then performed two randomized WAnTs against the standard (4.5%) and optimal braking forces. PP tended to be greater in the optimized vs. standard WAnT (12.5 ± 2.6 vs. 10.8 ± 1.0 W/kg, respectively; p = .07). No differences were observed for MP (standard: 6.2 ± 0.9 vs. optimized: 6.2 ± 1.1 W/kg; p = .9). Optimization of the WAnT tended to increase PP by 10-28% in youth 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.267
Threshold uncertainty score0.639

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it