MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407172063 · doi:10.1016/j.cjcpc.2025.01.003

In-Clinic Activity Promotion for Children With Congenital Heart Disease: Randomized Clinical Trial

2025· article· en· W4407172063 on OpenAlexafffund
Patricia E. Longmuir, Jane Lougheed, Andrew S. Mackie, Kambiz Norozi, Jenna Yaraskavitch, Alyssa Chappell, Adam A. Dempsey, Angelica Blais, Rae Foshaug, Andrew R. Willan, Jennifer Graham

Bibliographic record

VenueCJC Pediatric and Congenital Heart Disease · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Heart Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsChildren’s Health Research InstituteWestern UniversityUniversity of AlbertaHospital for Sick ChildrenStollery Children's HospitalUniversity of OttawaChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchWestern UniversityAlberta HealthChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Foundation
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialMedicineHeart diseasePromotion (chess)Health promotionClinical trialPediatricsPhysical therapyInternal medicineNursingPublic healthPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background An effective in-clinic physical activity counseling intervention is needed to increase physical activity motivation and participation among children with moderate or severe congenital heart disease and enable clinicians to comply with activity promotion recommendations. Methods This pragmatic, single-blind multicenter randomized clinical trial evaluated the intervention feasibility/efficacy among children aged 5-17 years. Clinicians delivered key messages, encouraged activity questions and discussion, and provided kinesiologist support. The primary outcome was daily activity (PiezoRx pedometer steps), assessed after the clinic visit and then monthly for 6 months. Clinic visit length, % counseled, patient/family perceptions, and kinesiology referral assessed health care system impacts. Results A total of 155 children (60 female, 10.8 ± 3.6 years of age) with moderate (n = 119) or severe (n = 36) diagnoses were included in this study. Initial daily step counts, adjusted for age, did not differ between the groups (mean difference=776 ± 515 steps per day, P = 0.13). Typically active intervention participants' mean daily steps over 6 months (adjusted for baseline age, sex, season, and steps) were stable above 12,000 steps per day. Typically active control steps declined, becoming significantly below intervention participants by month 5 ( P = 0.006). Highly active participants at baseline (>14,000 steps per day) in both study groups maintained their activity ( P = 0.91). Virtually all (97%) intervention participants were counseled, and the clinic visit duration did not differ by group ( P = 0.95). Conclusions Over 6 months, participants receiving a brief, standardized in-clinic activity counseling intervention with on-going kinesiology support were more likely to achieve the recommended daily physical activity. Counseling was feasible for clinicians to deliver during a routine clinic visit enabling compliance with recommended practice. Clinical Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT03435354.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.320 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCJC Pediatric and Congenital Heart DiseaseSame topicCongenital Heart Disease StudiesFrench-language works237,207