Feasibility of the wingate anaerobic exercise test as a clinical measure in patients with juvenile dermatomyositis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Core sets, while widely adopted for clinical assessment in juvenile dermatomyositis (JDM), have some drawbacks - they are time consuming, were developed primarily for research, and require an experienced multidisciplinary team. We propose the Wingate Anaerobic Test, a 30-s all out test performed on a cycle ergometer, as a potential alternative; it is valid and reliable in this patient population. We aimed to determine the feasibility of performing the Wingate test as part of a typical clinic visit, and to determine if it is correlated to current measures of disease activity. METHODS: Patients 5-18 years of age, with JDM, were recruited from the JDM clinic at a large Canadian academic children's hospital. Participants underwent a standard clinic assessment, then completed a Wingate test at the end of the visit. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients participated in the study, representing a recruitment rate of 81%; of those, 88% were able to complete the Wingate test. Patients liked the Wingate test and felt it should be included as a regular clinic test. Absolute peak power (watts) on the Wingate test was strongly correlated to the manual muscle test (MMT-8) and the timed squat test. Relative peak power (watts/kg) on the Wingate test was strongly correlated to the timed squat test and the Childhood Myositis Assessment Scale (CMAS). Exploratory principal components analysis revealed that Wingate relative average power explained almost 2/3 of the variance of the CMAS, MMT and timed squats combined. CONCLUSION: The Wingate test is a feasible test for children with JDM and correlates well with standard clinical assessments. Given its brevity, it has the potential to replace more standard measures of physical function currently used in clinical assessments for children with JDM. Future work should focus on how best to operationalize Wingate testing in clinic without the use of dedicated personnel.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".