Effects of a partially supervised conditioning programme in cystic fibrosis: an international multi-centre randomised controlled trial (ACTIVATE-CF): study protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physical activity (PA) and exercise have become an accepted and valued component of cystic fibrosis (CF) care. Regular PA and exercise can positively impact pulmonary function, improve physical fitness, and enhance health-related quality of life (HRQoL). However, motivating people to be more active is challenging. Supervised exercise programs are expensive and labour intensive, and adherence falls off significantly once supervision ends. Unsupervised or partially supervised programs are less costly and more flexible, but compliance can be more problematic. The primary objective of this study is to evaluate the effects of a partially supervised exercise intervention along with regular motivation on forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) at 6 months in a large international group of CF patients. Secondary endpoints include patient reported HRQoL, as well as levels of anxiety and depression, and control of blood sugar. It is planned that a total of 292 patients with CF 12 years and older with a FEV1 ≥ 35% predicted shall be randomised. Following baseline assessments (2 visits) patients are randomised into an intervention and a control group. Thereafter, they will be seen every 3 months for assessments in their centre for one year (4 follow-up visits). Along with individual counselling to increase vigorous PA by at least 3 h per week on each clinic visit, the intervention group documents daily PA and inactivity time and receives a step counter to record their progress within a web-based diary. They also receive monthly phone calls from the study staff during the first 6 months of the study. After 6 months, they continue with the step counter and web-based programme for a further 6 months. The control group receives standard care and keeps their PA level constant during the study period. Thereafter, they receive the intervention as well. This is the first large, international multi-centre study to investigate the effects of a PA intervention in CF with motivational feedback on several health outcomes using modern technology. Should this relatively simple programme prove successful, it will be made available on a wider scale internationally. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01744561 ; Registration date: December 6, 2012.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".