MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Let's Get Physical

2017· article· en· W2616100904 on OpenAlexaffabout
Chantal J. Allan, Simon Urschel, I. Larsen, Sunita Mathur, Lori J. West

Bibliographic record

VenueTransplantation · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTransplantation: Methods and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoAlberta Biodiversity Monitoring InstituteNorthern Alberta Institute of TechnologyUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnthropometryPhysical fitnessPhysical therapyAerobic exerciseQuality of life (healthcare)VO2 maxInternal medicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationCardiologyHeart rate

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Pediatric heart transplant recipients (pHTx) often appear to have lower physical fitness than healthy children (HC). This study assesses the aerobic capacity, muscle strength, and muscle endurance of pHTx in order to create a fitness profile for these children, and investigate clinical and lifestyle factors that may affect their fitness. Methods: pHTx (n=3) and a control group of HC and healthy siblings (n=6) are being recruited for this study. Healthy, non-related children are selected based on age, height, and sex to reduce variability among groups. Age-specific questionnaires assess quality of life (PedsQL 4.0) and physical activity (PAQ). Anthropometry and body composition (BodPod) are measured. Aerobic capacity is assessed by six-minute walk test (6MWT). Muscle strength is measured by hand-held dynamometry of upper (deltoid), core (abdominal), and lower (quadriceps) body muscle groups. Muscle endurance of upper (push-ups), core (curl-ups), and lower (wall sit) body muscle groups is measured. Clinical data regarding transplant course, medications, physical therapy, underlying diagnosis, onset of disease, number of pre-transplant surgeries, extra-cardiac organ impairment, and cerebrovascular events is collected from patient charts. Results: The pHTx group is age-matched with controls (pHTx=9.8±6.5 y, HC=11.4±1.4 y, p=0.72), and 6.4±7.6 y post-transplant. Preliminary data suggest that, despite comparable levels of physical activity (p=0.88), quality of life (p=0.68), and fat-free mass (p=0.63), some fitness measures are reduced in pHTx vs HC. Wall sit time is the only parameter that is significantly impaired in pHTx (p=0.02). However, the impairment in 6MWT among pHTx and HC approaches significance (p=0.08). Underlying diagnoses in pHTx include congenital heart disease (n=2) and cardiomyopathy (n=1). pHTx were receiving tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil, but not prednisone at the time of the study. The length of pre- and post-transplant physical therapy varied among pHTx, ranging from 0–12 weeks pre-transplant, and 0–52 weeks post-transplant. Conclusion: Lower body muscle endurance is impaired in pHTx versus HC. Since physical activity, quality of life, and fat-free mass are matched in the study sample, muscle function is likely impaired by other factor(s). Ongoing recruitment will allow further investigation of the effect of pediatric heart transplantation on fitness, and to analyze the effects of clinical factors on fitness outcomes. Canadian National Transplant Research Program. Astellas Pharma Canada, Inc. Women and Children's Health Research Institute. Department of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. References: 1. Ulrich S, Hildenbrand FF, Treder U, Fischler M, Keusch S, Speich R, Fasnacht M. Reference values for the 6-minute walk test in healthy children and adolescents in Switzerland. BMC pulmonary medicine. 2013 Aug 5;13(1):49.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.160
Threshold uncertainty score0.535

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1600.075

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.344 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransplantationSame topicTransplantation: Methods and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207