Safety of cardiorespiratory and muscle fitness assessment in two children with leukemia during early chemotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 ( V ˙ 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 V ˙ O 2 max exercise test. Regarding physical performance outcomes, both participants exhibited low scores compared to their gender, weight- and age-predicted V ˙ 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".