Aerobic Exercise Interventions for People Living with HIV/AIDS: Implications for Practice, Education, and Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this article is to present the results of a systematic review that investigated the effects of aerobic exercise interventions in people living with HIV/AIDS and to discuss the implications for physical therapy practice, education, and research. Summary of Key Points: A systematic review was conducted based on the Cochrane Collaboration protocol. Eleven randomized trials of HIVpositive adults who performed aerobic exercise three times per week for at least four weeks were identified. Thirteen meta-analyses were performed. The main results indicated that aerobic exercise was associated with significant improvements in some outcomes of cardiopulmonary status (maximum oxygen consumption) and psychological status (depression-dejection symptoms). Conclusions: Performing continuous or interval aerobic exercise or a combination of continuous aerobic exercise and progressive resistive exercise for at least 24 minutes three times per week for at least five weeks appears to be safe and may be beneficial for adults living with HIV. These findings should be interpreted cautiously owing to small sample sizes and high withdrawal rates within individual studies. The results of this review support the role of exercise and, more broadly, the role of rehabilitation practice, education, and research in the care and treatment of persons living with HIV.
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 | 0.020 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".