PO-37 THE IMPACT OF INTRADIALYTIC PEDALING EXERCISE ON ARTERIAL STIFFNESS IN A HEMODIALYSIS POPULATION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Hemodialysis patients are at greater risk of increased arterial stiffness. Regular aerobic exercise has been shown to reduce arterial stiffness in hemodialysis patients. However, the impact of a more realistic intradialytic form of exercise, such as pedaling, is unclear. Therefore, we aimed to examine 1) the effect of intradialytic pedaling exercise on arterial stiffness over 4 months, and 2) the durability of the pedaling effect 4 months after finishing the exercise intervention. Methods: We performed a 4-month randomized control trial in patients on a stable in-center hemodialysis regimen (3 days/week). Subjects were block randomized to either pedaling exercise (EX) or to a control group receiving usual dialysis (nonEX) for 4 months. At baseline and 4 months, augmentation index heart rate corrected (AIx75), and carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (cfPWV) were assessed (applanation tonometry; SphygmoCor XCEL). Measurements were repeated in the EX group 4 months after the exercise intervention. Results: 11 exercisers (58±16 years, BMI 26±5kg/m2, 3 female) and 10 controls (53±15 years, BMI 27±6kg/m2, 3 female) were included. Overall exercise compliance was 60±25%, and subjects exercised on average 47±25 mins per session. AIx75 was unchanged in the EX group, however an increase of 4.4±4.5% was noted in the nonEX group (P=0.020). We observed a greater absolute decrease in cfPWV in the EX group compared to the nonEX group: -1.44±2.06 vs. 0.27±0.55 m/s (P=0.037) (Figure 1). This difference in cfPWV was maintained after adjustments for age, Charlson comorbidity score, and the baseline cfPWV value (P=0.041). Interestingly, the decrease in cfPWV observed in the EX group was partially preserved 4 months after exercise cessation (Figure 2). Conclusions: The relationship between intradialytic pedaling exercise and improved arterial stiffness is promising, and warrants further investigation. Moreover, we have demonstrated that pedaling exercise is a realistic form of aerobic training in hemodialysis patients. Figure 1Post-exercise absolute change in cfPWV. Figure 2cfPWV at baseline, post-exercise and 4 months after exercise cessation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".