Exercise training improves aerobic capacity, muscle strength, and quality of life in renal transplant recipients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Renal transplant recipients (RTR) have reduced peak aerobic capacity, muscle strength, arterial function and an unfavorable cardiovascular disease risk (CVD) profile. This study compared the effects of 12 weeks of supervised endurance and strength training (EST, n = 16) versus usual care (UC, n = 15) on peak aerobic capicity, cardiovascular and skeletal muscle function, CVD risk profile, and quality of life (QOL) in RTR (55 ± 13 years). Peak aerobic capacity and exercise hemodynamics, arterial compliance, 24-h blood pressure, muscle strength, lean body mass, CVD risk score, and QOL were assessed before and after 12 weeks. The change in peak aerobic capacity (EST: 2.6 ± 3.1 vs. UC: -0.5 ± 2.5 mL/(kg·min)), cardiac output (EST: 1.7 ± 2.6 vs. UC: -0.01 ± 0.8 L/min), leg press (EST: 48.7 ± 34.1 vs. UC: -10.5 ± 37.7 kg) and leg extension strength (EST: 9.5 ± 10.3 vs. UC: 0.65 ± 5.5 kg) improved significantly after EST compared with UC. The overall change in QOL improved significantly after 12 weeks of EST compared with UC. No significant difference was found between groups for lean body mass, arterial compliance, 24-h blood pressure or CVD risk score. Supervised EST is an effective intervention to improve peak exercise aerobic capacity and cardiac output, muscle strength and QOL in clinically stable RTR.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".