Physical Activity in Patients Treated With Peritoneal Dialysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic diseases are known to benefit from exercise. Despite a lack of compelling evidence, patients with end-stage kidney disease treated with peritoneal dialysis are often discouraged from participating in exercise programs that include resistance training due to concerns about the development of hernias and leaks. The actual effects of physical activity with or without structured exercise programs for these patients remain unclear. The purpose of this study is to more completely define the risks and benefits of physical activity in the end-stage kidney disease population treated with peritoneal dialysis. METHODS/DESIGN: We will conduct a systematic review examining the effects of physical activity on end-stage kidney disease patients treated with peritoneal dialysis. For the purposes of this review, exercise will be considered a purposive subcategory of physical activity. The primary objective is to determine if physical activity in this patient population is associated with improvements in mental health, physical functioning, fatigue and quality of life and if there is an increase in adverse outcomes. With the help of a skilled librarian, we will search MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomized trials and observational studies. We will include adult end-stage kidney disease patients treated with peritoneal dialysis that have participated in an exercise training program or had their level of physical activity assessed directly or by self-report. The study must include an assessment of the association between physical activity and one of our primary or secondary outcomes measures. We will report study quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for randomized controlled trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies. Quality across studies will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The results of this review may help to inform guideline development for exercise recommendations specific to this patient population. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO:CRD42016041695.
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 | 0.003 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".