MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2417106493

Physical activity in youth with osteogenesis imperfecta type I.

2015· article· en· W2417106493 on OpenAlexaff
Annie Pouliot-Laforte, Frank Rauch, Martin Lemay

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicConnective tissue disorders research
Canadian institutionsShriners Hospitals for Children - CanadaCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOsteogenesis imperfectaMedicineMuscle weaknessWeaknessPhysical activityPhysical therapyMuscle powerMuscle disorderPhysical activity levelPhysical medicine and rehabilitationInternal medicinePediatricsSurgeryAnatomy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Individuals with Osteogenesis Imperfecta (OI) type I often show muscular weakness. However, it is unclear whether muscular weakness is a consequence of physical inactivity or a result of the disease itself. The aim was to assess muscle function in youth with OI type I and evaluate physical activity (PA). METHODS: Fourteen children with OI type I (mean age [SD]: 12.75 [4.62] years) were compared to 14 age- and gender-matched controls (mean age [SD]: 12.75 [4.59] years). Muscle force and power were determined through mechanography. PA and daily energy expenditure were measured with an accelerometer and a questionnaire. RESULTS: Compared to controls, children with OI type I had lower muscle force and power. OI type I children were as active as their healthy counterparts. CONCLUSIONS: Children and adolescents with OI type I and their healthy counterparts did not reached daily recommendations of PA. Given their muscle function deficit, youth with OI type I would benefit to reach these recommendations to prevent precocious effect of aging on muscles.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.558
Threshold uncertainty score0.301

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations48
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicConnective tissue disorders researchFrench-language works237,207