Effects of physical exercise training on nocturnal symptoms in asthma: Systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Nocturnal worsening of asthma symptoms is a common feature of asthma. Physical exercise training improves general asthma control; however, there is no evidence showing the effects of physical exercise on nocturnal asthma symptoms. Indeed, asthma patients with daytime and nighttime symptoms are physiologically different, and thus the effects of physical exercise on asthma may also be different in these two groups. The objective of this systematic review is to explore the effects of physical exercise on nocturnal asthma symptoms. METHODS: Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL and SPORTdiscus (last search on November 2017). Authors from studies that did not report nocturnal symptoms but used questionnaires and/or diaries were contacted for detailed information. Studies that provided results on nocturnal symptoms before and after physical activity intervention were included. Prevalence of nocturnal symptoms was calculated for each study from the percentage of study participants with nocturnal symptoms before and after intervention. RESULTS: Eleven studies were included (5 with children and 6 with adults). The prevalence of nocturnal symptoms at baseline ranged from 0% to 63% among children and from 50-73% among adults. In children and adults with nocturnal asthma, aerobic physical exercise reduced the prevalence and frequency of nocturnal symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Aerobic physical exercise improves nocturnal asthma in children and adults by reducing the prevalence and frequency of nocturnal symptoms. Physical exercise training could be used with conventional treatments to improve quality of life and asthma control in patients with nocturnal worsening of asthma.
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 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".