Exercise Training Improves Aerobic Capacity and Skeletal Muscle Function in Heart Transplant Recipients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to examine the effects of 12 weeks of supervised aerobic and strength training (SET) versus no-training (NT) on peak aerobic power (VO2peak), submaximal exercise left ventricular (LV) systolic function, peripheral vascular function, lean tissue mass and maximal strength in clinically stable heart transplant recipients (HTR). Forty-three HTR were randomly assigned to 12 weeks of SET (n = 22; age: 57 +/- 10 years; time posttransplant: 5.4 +/- 4.9 years) or NT (n = 21; age: 59 +/- 11 years; time posttransplant: 4.4 +/- 3.3 years). The change in VO2peak (3.11 mL/kg/min, 95% CI: 1.2-5.0 mL/kg/min), leg and total lean tissue mass (0.78 kg, 95% CI: 0.31-1.3 kg and 1.34 kg, 95% CI: 0.34-2.3 kg, respectively), chest-press (10.4 kg, 95% CI: 5.2-15.5 kg) and leg-press strength (34.7 kg, 95% CI: 3.7-65.6 kg) were significantly higher after SET versus NT. No significant change was found for submaximal exercise LV systolic function or brachial artery endothelial-dependent or -independent vasodilation. Supervised exercise training is an effective intervention to improve VO2peak, lean tissue mass and muscle strength in HTR. This training regimen did not improve exercise LV systolic function or brachial artery endothelial function.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".