Physical impairment in HIV infections and AIDS: responses to resistance and aerobic training.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The aim of this paper was to examine impairments in muscle strength and aerobic power associated with HIV and AIDS, to define optimal regimes of resistance and aerobic training, and to explore possible influences of HAART treatment upon responses. METHODS: Data from HealthStar/Ovid (1985 to 2013) were supplemented by references in identified articles and material in the author's personal files, yielding 133 citations. Detailed analysis was restricted to controlled trials (16 studies of resistance training, 17 of aerobic training). RESULTS: HIV infection and AIDS are often marked by substantial muscle wasting of multi-factorial origin. Impairment of aerobic function is more variable, with possible effects from physical inactivity, HAART therapy and muscular weakness. Most patients respond well to moderate resistance and aerobic training, showing substantial gains of strength, smaller improvements of aerobic power, and no adverse changes in CD4+ count or viral load. Moreover, these responses do not seem adversely affected by HAART therapy. CONCLUSION: Patients with HIV and AIDS should participate in moderate combined resistance and aerobic training programs. Such training elicits substantial gains in strength and cardiac function, and improves mood state and quality of life without adverse effects upon disease progression. Moreover, responses are not adversely affected by HAART therapy. The main challenge in the western world is to maintain compliance, since adherence to rehabilitation programs is often poor. There is also a need to develop exercise programs appropriate to regions where the disease is most prevalent, and to monitor possible interactions between rehabilitation and newly emerging forms of treatment.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".