Effects of Exercise Restriction on Patients With Anomalous Aortic Origin of a Coronary Artery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Management of young patients with anomalous aortic origin of a coronary artery (AAOCA) may involve exercise restriction. We sought to identify the association of exercise restriction with changes over time in body mass index (BMI) and exercise capacity in this cohort. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of patients with AAOCA seen at The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia between January 1, 1998, and August 31, 2014. Linear mixed model repeated-measures analysis assessed changes in BMI and exercise capacity. RESULTS: We included 72 patients with a median age at presentation of 12.6 years (interquartile range: 10.1-15.8) and mean follow-up of 3.6 ± 3.0 years. The majority had an anomalous right coronary artery (71%) and interarterial ± intramural coronary course (90%). Surgery was performed in 54%, more often in those with interarterial/intramural course ( P < .001) and symptoms ( P = .003). Most patients (82%) were exercise-restricted on presentation, and restricted patients were older than those who were not restricted ( P = .01). There was no significant difference between restricted and nonrestricted patients in initial BMI z scores, percentage of patients with BMI over 85th percentile (26%) or exercise capacity variables. In univariable analysis, exercise restriction over time was not associated with change in BMI z score ( P = .25) or change in exercise variables. Restriction was not associated with significant change in these variables in multivariable analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Although further investigation is warranted to determine the degree of adherence to exercise restriction, the recommendation of restriction alone is not associated with increasing BMI or decreasing exercise performance in the short-term.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".