MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3044060299 · doi:10.1161/cir.0000000000000866

Cardiorespiratory Fitness in Youth: An Important Marker of Health: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

2020· review· en· W3044060299 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsWiLAN (Canada)
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsCardiorespiratory fitnessMedicineAssociation (psychology)Cardiovascular healthStatement (logic)Physical fitnessVO2 maxGerontologyPhysical therapyInternal medicineBlood pressureHeart rateDiseasePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) refers to the capacity of the circulatory and respiratory systems to supply oxygen to skeletal muscle mitochondria for energy production needed during physical activity. CRF is an important marker of physical and mental health and academic achievement in youth. However, only 40% of US youth are currently believed to have healthy CRF. In this statement, we review the physiological principles that determine CRF, the tools that are available to assess CRF, the modifiable and nonmodifiable factors influencing CRF, the association of CRF with markers of health in otherwise healthy youth, and the temporal trends in CRF both in the United States and internationally. Development of a cost-effective CRF measurement process that could readily be incorporated into office visits and in field settings to screen all youth periodically could help identify those at increased risk.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.962
Threshold uncertainty score0.619

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.279 · 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