Exercise training following lung transplant is now evidence-based practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
QUESTION: In patients immediately following lung transplant, does three months of supervised exercise training confer changes in physical activity during daily life, functional exercise capacity, muscle force, health-related quality of life (HRQL), or forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV(1))? DESIGN: Randomised, controlled trial with concealed allocation in which investigators responsible for collecting the outcome measures were blinded to group allocation. SETTING: Out-patient department of a hospital in Leuven, Belgium. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged between 40 and 65 years who had an uncomplicated single or double lung transplant. Randomisation of 40 participants allocated 21 to the intervention group and 19 to the control group. INTERVENTIONS: Participants in both groups received six individual counselling sessions of 15-30 minutes in duration, during which they were instructed to increase participation in daily physical activity. In addition, the intervention group attended supervised exercise training sessions three times a week for 3 months following discharge. Each training session was approximately 90 minutes and comprised cycle ergometry, walking, stair climbing, and leg press resistance exercises. Training was prescribed at moderate to high intensity and progressed according to symptoms. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was time spent walking each day. Secondary outcomes included the six-minute walk distance (6MWD), peripheral muscle force, HRQL, and FEV(1). RESULTS: Data were available on 18 and 16 patients in the intervention and control groups, respectively. On completion of the intervention, between-group differences in favour of the intervention group were demonstrated in the average time spent walking each day (difference in means 14 min, 95% CI 4 to 24), 6MWD (differences in means 9% predicted, 95% CI 3 to 15) and quadriceps force (difference in means 17% predicted, 95% CI 9 to 24), but not HRQL or FEV(1). These between-group differences were maintained 12 months following discharge from hospital. At the 12 month assessment, between-group differences in favour of the intervention group were also demonstrated in two components of HRQL related to physical function. CONCLUSION: In patients following lung transplant, exercise training conferred immediate and sustained gains in physical activity during daily life and exercise capacity. Gains in HRQL also appear to be evident, but took longer to be realised.
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 | 0.012 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".