Development, feasibility, and efficacy of a customized exercise device to deliver intradialytic resistance training in patients with end stage renal disease: Non‐randomized controlled crossover trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction This study assessed the feasibility and efficacy of a novel resistance training device used within an intradialytic progressive resistance training (PRT) intervention. Methods Non-randomized, within-subjects crossover design with outcomes assessed at baseline (week 0), postcontrol (week 13) and post-PRT intervention (week 26). Twenty-two hemodialysis patients (59% men, 71 ± 11 years) performed PRT three sessions per week for 12 weeks. The resistance training device was developed to enable the performance of 2 upper body and 3 lower body exercises, unilaterally and bilaterally, both before and during dialysis, with loads of 2.5 to 59 kg. Feasibility outcomes included adverse events, adherence and training load progression. Changes in upper and lower body muscular strength, six-minute walk, aspects of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and depression were evaluated. Findings The PRT intervention was delivered without serious adverse events, resulted in 71.2% ± 23.3% adherence and significant adaptation of all training loads from pre to mid to post training (83.8%-185.6%, all P < 0.05). Lower body strength (P < 0.001) and HRQoL subscales (Role-Physical, Social Functioning, Role-Emotional) significantly increased (all P < 0.01) and a trend toward reduced depression was noted (P = 0.06). No significant changes were noted in other outcomes. Discussion PRT using the novel resistance training device was feasible and improved measures of physical and psychological health. This device can be utilized in most dialysis centers. Future studies are required to evaluate dose-response effects of PRT prescriptions in subpopulations, and the translation of PRT to standard dialysis practice.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".