A randomized control trial of a supervised versus a self‐directed exercise program for allogeneic stem cell transplant patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine if therapist supervision of an exercise program produced better functional outcomes in allogeneic stem cell transplant patients than a patient-directed exercise program. METHODS: Sixty-one patients who were less than 6 months post allogeneic stem cell transplant were randomly assigned to either a therapist supervised training group (supervised) or a patient-directed training group (Self-directed). Training consisted of aerobic exercises (treadmill, bicycle ergometer versus walking) and resistance exercises (free weights, weight machines versus resistive band activities). Subjects completed physical performance tests (50-foot fast walk, 6-min walk, forward reach, repeated sit-to-stand, uniped stance) and the Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) before and after 4 weeks of training. Pre- and post-training outcomes and group differences were analyzed by a Student t-test. RESULTS: Patients in both groups were similarly deconditioned at baseline. Training increased the 6-min walk distance and 50-foot walk in the supervised group by 12 and 14%, respectively, and increased the 6-min walk distance by 10% in the Self-directed group (p<0.05). BFI score for worst level of fatigue declined in both groups but not significantly. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate that allogeneic transplant patients derive functional benefits from short-term exercise training regardless of how the training program is supervised. Determining (1) the reasons for the low participation rate (28%), (2) the patient-preferred characteristics of each exercise supervision style and (3) how best to match patient preference to exercise supervision style remain significant issues in this area of patient delivery services.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
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".