MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3023697575 · doi:10.1249/mss.0000000000002391

Exercise Thermoregulation in Prepubertal Children: A Brief Methodological Review

2020· review· en· W3023697575 on OpenAlexaff
Sean R. Notley, Ashley P. Akerman, Robert D. Meade, Gregory W. McGarr, Glen P. Kenny

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicThermoregulation and physiological responses
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThermoregulationPsychologyFunction (biology)Heat stressDevelopmental psychologyPhysical activityCognitive psychologyMedicinePhysical therapyBiologyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prepubertal children (6-12 yr) differ from adults in various morphological and physiological factors that may influence thermoregulatory function; however, experimental evidence of meaningful child-adult differences in heat strain during exercise-heat stress is sparse, despite numerous studies. Although we appreciate the challenges associated with performing such comparisons, part of that discrepancy may be due to the methods used. Nonetheless, a focused discussion of these methodological considerations and their implications for current understanding remains unavailable. This is an important knowledge gap given the threat to health posed by rising global temperatures and the ongoing focus on improving physical activity levels in children. The aims of this methodological review were, therefore, to (i) review the theoretical basis for child-adult differences in thermoregulatory function, (ii) describe previous comparisons of exercise thermoregulation between prepubertal children and adults, (iii) discuss two methodological issues associated with that research, which, in our view, make it difficult to present empirical evidence related to child-adult differences in thermoregulatory function and associated heat strain, (iv) provide potential solutions to these issues, and (v) propose pertinent areas for further research.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.106
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.303 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designNot applicable · Other design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations42
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & ExerciseSame topicThermoregulation and physiological responsesFrench-language works237,207