The HALO submaximal treadmill protocol to measure cardiorespiratory fitness in obese children and youth: a proof of principle study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many limitations exist with completing cardiorespiratory fitness testing in obese children. The aim of this study was to determine if the new Healthy Active Living and Obesity Research Group's (HALO's) submaximal cardiorespiratory fitness testing protocol for obese children and youth provides a comparable estimate of peak oxygen uptake to that measured using validated maximal and submaximal, equation-based protocols in the obese pediatric population. A group of obese children (n = 21; all ≥95th body mass index percentile; aged 10-17 years) completed 3 exercise testing protocols. Testing was completed as part of an ongoing cohort study and 2 submaximal cardiorespiratory fitness tests were completed, in randomized order, during a second visit. Significant correlations were found between observed peak oxygen uptake (mL·min(-1)) and predicted peak oxygen uptake for both the HALO (r = 0.75, p = 0.001) and Nemeth (r = 0.66, p = 0.001) submaximal protocols. A similar correlation was found, after accounting for body mass, between measured and predicted HALO peak oxygen uptake (mL·kg(-1)·min(-1)) values (r = 0.54, p = 0.01). HALO predicted peak oxygen uptake values showed a significant correlation when plotted against the measured values (r = 0.99). A Bland-Altman analysis found agreement between the maximal and HALO submaximal protocols (mean bias = -201.75 mL·min(-1)). The significant relationships found between estimates of peak oxygen uptake from the HALO submaximal protocol and measures of peak oxygen uptake during maximal cardiorespiratory testing support the use of the HALO submaximal protocol as a valid measure to estimate maximal cardiorespiratory fitness within the obese pediatric population. Given the proof of principle goal of this study, future research in the obese, pediatric population is encouraged to confirm the generalizability of the protocol.
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 | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".