MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105042491 · doi:10.1016/s1836-9553(13)70151-6

Exercise training following lung transplant is now evidence-based practice

2013· letter· en· W2105042491 on OpenAlex
Lisa Wickerson

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of physiotherapy · 2013
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTransplantation: Methods and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsToronto General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePhysical therapyQuality of life (healthcare)Randomized controlled trialStair climbingAerobic exerciseIntervention (counseling)SurgeryNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.338 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it