Children With Congenital Heart Disease Who Volunteer for Physical Activity Research Tend to Have Higher Activity Adequacy and Participation Aligned With Activity Recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess biases in physical activity beliefs/behaviors between research volunteers and those assessed through clinical care. METHOD: Physical activity behavior (pedometer steps) and adequacy/predilection (Children's Self-Perceptions of Adequacy in and Predilection for Physical Activity scale) were compared among 198 pediatric cardiology patients (5-17 y) with moderate/severe congenital heart disease. Volunteers (n = 142, 59% male, 11.0 (3.4) y) participated in a multicenter activity trial. The clinical subgroup (n = 56, 58% male, 11.1 (4.0) y) completed assessments during a routine clinical encounter. Independent t tests compared outcomes within child/adolescent age groups. RESULTS: Child volunteers tended to report higher activity adequacy (mean difference = 1.9 (1.0), P = .06) than clinic patients, suggesting increased confidence for activity participation. Daily steps did not differ between groups (P > .10). The extra 1600 steps per day among volunteers enabled child volunteers to achieve the recommended 12,000 steps per day. Cardiologist reported activity restrictions were associated with more steps per day (P < .01). CONCLUSION: Research volunteers may be more likely to achieve daily physical activity recommendations. Child volunteers tend to be more confident in their ability to participate successfully. Cardiologist reported activity restrictions may provide confidence regarding appropriate types of activity, leading children and adolescents to take more steps each day. Physical activity research participants and those with cardiologist reported activity restrictions may not reflect those most in need of additional support.
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 | 0.010 |
| 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".