Effects of intradialytic cycling compared with pedometry on physical function in chronic outpatient hemodialysis: a prospective randomized trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Individuals on hemodialysis have low physical function and activity levels. Clinical trials have shown improvements in these parameters with exercise programming. Pedometers have not been extensively evaluated in individuals on hemodialysis. This randomized clinical trial compared the effects of intradialytic cycling versus a pedometer program on physical function, physical activity and quality of life. METHODS: Sixty patients were randomly assigned to two study groups. The ergometer group cycled during each hemodialysis session for 24 weeks. Pedometer participants followed a home-based walking program for 24 weeks. The primary outcome was aerobic capacity [VO2peak and 6-minute walk (6MW) test]. Secondary outcomes included lower extremity strength [sit-to-stand (SS) test], flexibility [sit-and-reach (SR) test], physical activity (accelerometer) and health-related quality of life. Measurements were collected at baseline and at 12 and 24 weeks. RESULTS: At 12 and 24 weeks, there was no significant change in the VO2peak or 6MW test between or within study groups. SS testing in the ergometer group improved from 10.2 (SD 3.4) to 11.4 (SD 2.5) cycles from baseline to 24 weeks (P < 0.005). Similarly, in the pedometer group, SS cycles improved from 10.1 (SD 3.3) to 12.2 (SD 3.5) (P < 0.005). The SR test also significantly improved over time in both the study groups. No significant changes were noted for other secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Both intradialytic cycling and pedometer programming improved aspects of physical function. Neither intervention had a significant effect on aerobic capacity. No significant differences in any outcomes were identified between interventions groups.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".