Activity Intensity During Free-Living Activities in Children and Adolescents With Inherited Arrhythmia Syndromes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: International guidelines recommend restriction of activities for many children and adolescents with inherited arrhythmia syndromes to moderate activity (<7 metabolic equivalents [METs]). We hypothesized that moderate levels of intensity would be exceeded during free-living daily activity in these individuals when assessed objectively by combined heart rate and accelerometry monitor (Actiheart). METHODS AND RESULTS: Participants wore the Actiheart for ≤7 days on 2 occasions after a maximal exercise test that was used to calibrate the monitor individually against intensity levels. Of 16 participants, 13 (81%) had long QT syndrome, 9 (56%) were female, and median age was 12 years. Monitors were worn for a median (range) of 13 (6-14) days, and a mean (SD) of 11.3 (1.7) hours per day. Vigorous (7 MET) and very vigorous (10 MET) thresholds were exceeded by 15 and 13 participants, respectively. The median (interquartile range), individual, total weekly time spent >7 MET threshold was 113 (65-330) minutes, whereas such time spent >10 MET threshold was 53 (9-115) minutes. Total time>7 MET threshold was 2.3% of monitor wear time. There were no differences in time above threshold between male and female participants (P=0.357) or among those with different levels of activity restriction (P=0.769). CONCLUSIONS: Current recommended activity guidelines are frequently exceeded during routine free-living activities in young participants with inherited arrhythmia syndromes. Whether this indicates increased risk for these individuals or excessively restrictive guidelines remains to be determined.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".