Physical Activity Profile of Lung Transplant Candidates With Interstitial Lung Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Little is known about physical activity in individuals with interstitial lung disease (ILD). The objectives of this study were (1) to objectively measure physical activity in lung transplant candidates with ILD, (2) to compare levels of physical activity on rehabilitation and nonrehabilitation days, and (3) to explore the relationships between physical activity and functional measures. METHODS: Twenty-four (14 men) lung transplant candidates with ILD on long-term oxygen therapy, who were enrolled in an exercise-based rehabilitation program, underwent measurements of physical activity using accelerometry (daily steps and time spent in moderate-intensity physical activity per day), functional exercise capacity (6-minute walk distance), and muscle strength (isometric quadriceps torque). RESULTS: Lung transplant candidates with ILD had reduced levels of physical activity compared to the general population but were more active on rehabilitation versus nonrehabilitation days (M ± SD) (daily steps, 3780 ± 2196 vs 2138 ± 1353; P < .001; and time spent in moderate-intensity activity per day, 4.5 [interquartile range, 1.5-17] minutes vs 2 [interquartile range, 1-3.5] minutes). The 6-minute walk distance showed the strongest correlation to daily steps (r = 0.59, P < .01) and time spent in moderate-intensity physical activity per day (r = 0.56, P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with advanced ILD are markedly inactive; however, physical activity levels were significantly higher on rehabilitation days. The importance of physical activity as a rehabilitation outcome in ILD warrants further investigation.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".