Outcomes in randomized controlled trials of exercise interventions in solid organ transplant
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMTo identify the outcome measures that have been used in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of exercise training in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients and to link these outcomes to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) framework. METHODSElectronic literature searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane, Scopus, and Web of Science were performed.We sought RCTs that investigated the effect of exercise training in SOT recipients.Reference lists of all eligible publications were searched for other appropriate studies not identified by the electronic search.A complete list of outcome measures used in the RCTs was generated and each of these was linked to an ICF category. RESULTSFour hundred and thirteen articles were retrieved, of which 35 met our inclusion criteria.The studies included were designed to compare the effects of exercise training programs to usual care or to another exercise training program and reported on recipients of heart (n = 21), kidney (n = 9), lung (n = 3) or liver (n = 2) transplant.Of the 126 outcome measures identified, 62 were used as primary outcome measures.The most commonly occurring primary outcomes were aerobic capacity using the peak VO2 (n = 13), quality of life using the shortform-36 (n = 8), and muscle strength (n = 7).These
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 | 0.181 | 0.500 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.016 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".