Exercise Training Before and After Lung Transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The benefits of exercise training in individuals with chronic lung diseases such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cystic fibrosis, and interstitial lung disease have been well documented. Although there is limited research available, it appears that exercise is safe and beneficial for people with severe end-stage chronic lung disease who are awaiting lung transplantation in addition to recipients of lung transplants. Evidence-based guidelines for exercise training in the pre- and post-lung transplantation phases have not yet been developed. However, by considering exercise guidelines for people with chronic lung disease and in older adults in light of the physiological changes that can occur either pre- or post-lung transplantation, a safe and appropriate exercise training program can be developed. Depending on the individual's exercise capacity and goals, the training program may include aerobic and resistance exercise, and flexibility and balance training. In the pre-transplant and acute post-transplant phases, the intensity of exercise is dictated primarily by symptom limitation and adequate rest, which is required between exercise bouts to allow for recovery. In the post-transplant phase, it is possible for lung transplant recipients to increase their exercise capacity and even participate in sports. Further research needs to be conducted to determine the optimal training guidelines and the long-term benefits of exercise, both in lung transplant candidates and recipients.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".