Meeting Report: Consensus Recommendations for a Research Agenda in Exercise in Solid Organ Transplantation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With improved survival rates in solid organ transplantation there has been an increased focus on long-term outcomes following transplant, including physical function, health-related quality-of-life and cardiovascular mortality. Exercise training has the potential to affect these outcomes, however, research on the optimal timing, type, dose of exercise, mode of delivery and relevant outcomes is limited. This article provides a summary of a 2-day meeting held in April 2013 (Toronto, Canada) in which a multi-disciplinary group of clinicians, researchers, administrators and patient representatives engaged in knowledge exchange and discussion of key issues in exercise in solid organ transplant (SOT). The outcomes from the meeting were the development of top research priorities and a research agenda for exercise in SOT, which included the need for larger scale, multi-center intervention studies, development of standardized outcomes for physical function and surrogate measures for clinical trials, examining novel modes of exercise delivery and novel outcomes from exercise training studies such as immunity, infection, cognition and economic outcomes. The development and dissemination of "expert consensus guidelines," synthesizing both the best available evidence and expert opinion was prioritized as a key step toward improving program delivery.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it