Let's get physical: Aerobic capacity, muscle strength, and muscle endurance after pediatric heart transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Pediatric heart (HTx) and kidney transplant (KTx) recipients may have lower physical fitness than healthy children. This study sought to quantify fitness levels in transplant recipients, investigate associations to clinical factors and quality of life, and identify whether a quick, simple wall‐sit test is feasible as a surrogate for overall fitness for longitudinal assessment. Methods Aerobic capacity (6‐min walk test, 6MWT), normalized muscle strength, muscle endurance, physical activity questionnaire (PAQ), and quality of life (PedsQL™) were prospectively assessed in transplanted children and matched healthy controls. Results Twenty‐two HTx were compared to 20 controls and 6 KTx. 6MWT %predicted was shorter in HTx (87.2 [69.9–118.6] %) than controls (99.9 [80.4–120] %), but similar to KTx (90.3 [78.6–115] %). Muscle strength was lower in HTx deltoids (6.15 [4.35–11.3] kg/m2) and KTx quadriceps (9.27 [8.65–19.1] kg/m2) versus controls. Similarly, muscle endurance was lower in HTx push‐ups (28.6 [0–250] %predicted), KTx push‐ups (8.35 [0–150] %predicted), HTx curl‐ups (115 [0–450] %predicted), and KTx wall‐sit time (18.5 [10.0–54.0] s) than controls. In contrast to HTx with only 9%, all KTx were receiving steroid therapy. The wall‐sit test significantly correlated with other fitness parameters (normalized quadriceps strength R = .31, #push‐ups R = .39, and #curl‐ups R = .43) and PedsQL™ (R = .36). Conclusions Compared to controls, pediatric HTx and KTx have similarly lower aerobic capacity, but different deficits in muscle strength, likely related to steroid therapy in KTx. The convenient wall‐sit test correlates with fitness and reported quality of life, and thus could be a useful easy routine for longitudinal assessment.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".