MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411731516 · doi:10.1177/18758894251347128

Safety of cardiorespiratory and muscle fitness assessment in two children with leukemia during early chemotherapy

2025· article· en· W4411731516 on OpenAlexaff
Virginie Aspirot-Buron, Charles Sèbiyo Batcho, Michèle Bisson, Bruno Michon, Marc-André Dugas, Isabelle Marc, Philippe Corbeil

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pediatric Rehabilitation Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalCentre hospitalier universitaire de QuébecCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCardiorespiratory fitnessAlgorithmMedicinePhysical therapyMachine learningDatabaseComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose Limited data are available on the cardiorespiratory and muscle fitness of children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) during chemotherapy. This pilot study evaluated the safety of testing the cardiorespiratory and muscle fitness of two children with ALL at different risk levels in early chem treatment. Methods Two girls with low- and high-risk B-cell ALL (DFCI-16-001) took part in two test sessions: T1 (induction, consolidation 1A/C) and T2 (consolidation 2). Each testing session included a maximal oxygen uptake ( <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline" overflow="scroll"> <mml:mrow> <mml:mover> <mml:mi>V</mml:mi> <mml:mo>˙</mml:mo> </mml:mover> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> O 2 max) exercise test, muscular strength tests, physical activity and quality of life questionnaires, and a semi-structured interview. The parents agreed to these assessments at the start of chemotherapy treatment. Results The participants experienced no significant adverse effects from undertaking the cardiorespiratory and muscular tests, and there was no impact on their chemotherapy treatment schedule. At their post-test interview, both participants reported that thigh pain and fatigue were the most difficult part of the <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline" overflow="scroll"> <mml:mrow> <mml:mover> <mml:mi>V</mml:mi> <mml:mo>˙</mml:mo> </mml:mover> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> O 2 max exercise test. Regarding physical performance outcomes, both participants exhibited low scores compared to their gender, weight- and age-predicted <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline" overflow="scroll"> <mml:mrow> <mml:mover> <mml:mi>V</mml:mi> <mml:mo>˙</mml:mo> </mml:mover> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> O 2 max and on most strength test values. Conclusion The physical tests were safely and successfully conducted with these two participants during early chemotherapy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.519

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pediatric Rehabilitation MedicineSame topicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207