The effect of intradialytic exercise twice a week on the physical capacity, inflammation, and nutritional status of dialysis patients: A randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Inactivity, uremia, and malnutrition in dialysis patients may lead to decreased muscle mass and physical capacity. As a preventative measure, dialysis patients are provided with an intradialytic exercise program. Our study aimed to determine the role of intradialytic exercise performed 2 times per week on physical capacity, inflammation, and nutritional status in dialysis patients and to determine which exercises are more suitable for this population. METHODS: A randomized clinical trial in which participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups, i.e., a group of patients performing aerobic exercise, a group of patients performing a combination of aerobic and resistance exercise and the control group. The study was conducted at the Dialysis Unit of Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo General Hospital, Jakarta for 12 weeks from February to May 2018. The inclusion criteria were dialysis patients aged over 18 years who had undergone routine dialysis for over 3 months. FINDINGS: A total of one hundred twenty patients were included in the study. There was a significant increase in lower extremity strength in the group performing aerobic exercise and in the combined exercise group compared to the lower extremity strength of the control group. There was also a significant increase in the physical component score (PCS) of the KDQOL-SF™ instrument in the aerobic training and combination exercise groups compared to the PCS of the control group. No significant differences were found between the combination exercise group and the aerobic training group in any outcome. DISCUSSION: Both types of exercise programs significantly increased the lower extremity muscle strength and the PCS of the quality of life index. Combination exercise was not more effective than aerobic exercise for dialysis patients.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".