Does physical fitness enhance lung function in children and young adults?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although physical activity is important for lung health, it is unclear whether physical fitness influences lung function. We investigated associations between lung function and fitness in two population-based cohort studies of children and young adults. Aerobic fitness was measured using a maximal cycle ergometer test at ages 9, 15, 21 and 29 years in Odense, Denmark and using a submaximal cycle test at ages 15, 26, 32 and 38 years in Dunedin, New Zealand. Aerobic fitness was positively associated with forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) and forced vital capacity (FVC) in cross-sectional analyses at all ages in both cohorts, independently of height, weight, sex, asthma and smoking. Each standard deviation difference in fitness was associated with 2–3% predicted higher values of FEV1and FVC. Improvements in fitness during childhood and adolescence were associated with growth in lung volumes in longitudinal analyses. These associations tended to be stronger in males than females. No longitudinal associations were found after peak adult lung function had been attained. Fitness was not significantly associated with FEV1/FVC ratios. Aerobic fitness is positively associated with lung volumes. Improving fitness during childhood and adolescence is associated with greater adult lung volumes, but not with airway calibre.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".