MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Predictive Formulas To Improve The Interpretation Of Cardiorespiratory Fitness In Children

2017· article· en· W2619810968 on OpenAlexaff
Joël Blanchard, Samuel Blais, Philippe Chétaille, Michèle Bisson, F. Counil, Thelma Huard-Girard, Jade Berbari, Pierre Boulay, Frédéric Dallaire

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPercentileCardiorespiratory fitnessMedicineLinear regressionWaistStatisticsReference valuesCohortLean body massPhysical therapyMathematicsBody mass indexInternal medicineBody weight

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adequate reference values for cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) is crucial for accurate interpretation and prognostic purposes for children with a chronic disease. Current reference values in healthy children have been developed using heterogeneous exercise protocols and often incomplete adjustment for body size. PURPOSE: To update current reference values from CPET and provide new reference values for several parameters previously unstudied in children using a prospectively recruited cohort of healthy children. METHODS: In this cross-sectional multicenter study, we prospectively recruited 269 healthy children (♂=107; ♀=162) between the ages of 12-17 years old (14.8 ± 1.5) in local schools. We measured height, weight, waist circumference, pubertal development and fat free mass (FFM) and performed a symptom-limited CPET (Vmax Encore Metabolic Cart, Sensormedic, San Diego, CA) on an electronically-braked ergocycle using a progressive ramp protocol. Reference values and Z score were computed by testing several regressions models for each CPET measurement. Variation around the predicted mean was modeled to account for heteroscedasticity and residual association with growth-related parameters was assessed. RESULTS: Using currently published reference values, up to 31.2% of children were classified as having abnormal CPET results despite being free of chronic disease. Our weighted non-linear parametric modeling allowed more precise and well-adjustted Z scores and percentiles limits. The table shows a selection of our predicting equations as well as the percentage of children below the 3rd percentile. Selection of prediction equations for malesTable: No title available.CONCLUSION: The use of weighted non-linear regression model resulted in a decreased false-positive rate. These updated and new reference values provide an accurate lower limit of normal thus improving their value for prognostic and risk-stratification in children with chronic diseases.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicObesity, Physical Activity, Diet→French-language works237,207→