Physical Activity in Paediatric Long QT Syndrome Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Physical activity (PA) is important for cardiovascular health as well as social and emotional well-being of children. Patients with long QT syndrome (LQTS) often face PA restrictions and are often prescribed beta-blockers for disease management. The aim of this study was to determine if PA levels were lower in patients with LQTS compared with healthy controls. Methods Participants with LQTS from an inherited arrhythmia clinic completed the Physical Activity Questionnaire for Children and Adolescents (PAQ-C/A) and an exercise stress test. PAQ score (a general measure of PA for youth, unitless) and endurance time were compared with healthy controls. Results Twenty-three patients with LQTS completed the PAQ and had an exercise stress test within a year of having completed the PAQ. No difference was observed in PAQ scores between LQTS and control groups (LQTS: 2.3 ± 0.15 vs controls: 2.3 ± 0.18; P = 0.78). There was no effect of age on PA in patients with LQTS ( P > 0.05), whereas PA significantly decreased in controls with age (eg, 11-12 vs 17-20 years: 3.2 ± 0.07 vs 1.5 ± 0.08, P = 0.005). Endurance time and heart rate at peak exercise were significantly lower in patients with LQTS compared with controls (11 ± 0.5 vs 15 ± 0.5 minutes, P < 0.0001; 169 ± 5 vs 198 ± 2 beats per minute, P < 0.0001). Conclusions Despite guideline recommendations restricting PA, risk of sudden cardiac death, and use of beta-blockers, our cohort of patients with LQTS reported similar PA levels as healthy controls.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".