Echocardiographic Parameters Associated With Cardiorespiratory Fitness and Physical Activity in Childhood Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia Survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Children's exposure to chemotherapeutic agents causes several long-term adverse effects but physical activity has been evidenced to be an effective strategy to improve cardiac function. This cross-sectional study aimed to explore the association between physical activity levels, cardiorespiratory fitness, and cardiac parameters measured by echocardiography. METHODS: Participants were 216n childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia survivors who underwent a maximal cardiopulmonary exercise test and self-reported their daily minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity. They underwent a complete transthoracic echocardiographic assessment. Systolic and diastolic function analysis and strain images analysis were performed. The associations were studied through the preventive fraction (examined with univariate crude and adjusted logistic regression models) of regular physical activity (≥150 min·wk-1) and adequate cardiorespiratory fitness levels (above the median ≥ 32.0 mL·kg-1·min-1) on cardiac parameters. RESULTS: Crude analysis shows that regular physical activity was associated with a significant preventive fraction in mitral E/A ratio (56%; P = .013), while adjusted analyses highlighted a nonsignificant reduction of 74% to 37% in the prevalence of cardiac parameters associated with physical activity. Similar associations of adequate cardiorespiratory fitness on cardiac parameters were observed. Adjusted analyses revealed a nonsignificant reduction of 7% to 86% in the prevalence of cardiac parameters associated with cardiorespiratory fitness. CONCLUSION: This study reports that regular physical activity and adequate cardiorespiratory fitness were associated with a higher preventive fraction. Thus, engaging in physical activity prevents childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia survivors' cardiac dysfunctions. These findings are novel and clinically relevant in pediatric cardiooncology and provide additional evidence to strengthen the benefits of exercise as long-term care in childhood cancer survivors.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".