Impact of the <scp>COVID</scp>‐19 pandemic on perceived cardiorespiratory fitness in athlete patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF), as one of the most potent prognostic factors in medicine, is followed longitudinally to guide clinical management. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic-related changes in lifestyle stand to influence CRF. OBJECTIVE: To assess the influence of the pandemic on perceived CRF in athlete patients and evaluate how perceived CRF change was related to demographics, pre-pandemic measured CRF, and current physical activity (PA). DESIGN: Prospective cohort study, utilizing electronic survey. SETTING: Tertiary care sports cardiology clinical practice. PARTICIPANTS: Adult athlete patients without COVID-19 with pre-pandemic measured CRF using cardiopulmonary exercise testing. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Perceived change in CRF since pandemic onset; association between perceived CRF change and demographics, PA, health status, and pre-pandemic measured CRF assessed via analysis of variance (ANOVA). RESULTS: Among 62 participants (male: 71%, 50.1 ± 12.1 years old), 40% (25/62) reported no change and 32% (20/62) reported an increase in perceived CRF since pandemic onset. Among the 27% (17/62) who reported a decrease in perceived CRF, in most (12/17), this was characterized as only mild. Demographics and pre-pandemic measured CRF did not differ across groups of perceived CRF change. Participants with a moderate or greater decrease in perceived CRF regarded their overall health (via Euro Quality of Life Visual Analogue Scale) as worse than other groups (ANOVA, p = .001). Although total PA was similar across groups, those who had improvement in perceived CRF reported higher levels of moderate intensity PA (ANOVA, p = .008). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of participants perceived that they had maintained or improved CRF over the pandemic. Findings from this study suggest that a reduction in perceived CRF from pre-pandemic values in athletic patients in clinical practice may not result from population-wide pandemic changes in lifestyle. Worse health status and lower levels of moderate intensity PA were associated with perceived reduction in CRF over the pandemic in athlete patients.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".