Exercise for Solid Organ Transplant Candidates and Recipients: A Joint Position Statement of the Canadian Society of Transplantation and CAN-RESTORE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objectives of this position statement were to provide evidence-based and expert-informed recommendations for exercise training in adult and children solid organ transplant (SOT) candidates and recipients and on the outcomes relevant to exercise training and physical function that should be evaluated in SOT. METHODS: We identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews of exercise interventions in adult and pediatric SOT candidates and recipients. When RCTs were not available, studies of any design were reviewed. The key recommendations were based on scientific evidence and expert-informed opinion. RESULTS: We recommended that exercise training should be offered in the pre- and posttransplant phase for both adults and children. In adults, exercise training pretransplant was safe, but there was insufficient evidence to provide specific guidelines on the training characteristics. RCTs in adult SOT recipients demonstrated that exercise training improved exercise capacity, lower extremity muscle strength, and health-related quality of life. To obtain benefits, exercise training should be of moderate to vigorous-intensity level, 3-5 times a week for a minimum of 8 weeks. In pediatrics, there is an urgent need for high-quality multicenter clinical trials in the pre- and posttransplant phases. Due to limited evidence, specific recommendations regarding training characteristics could not be provided for pediatrics. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical relevance of this position statement is that it provides a key step toward raising awareness of the importance of exercise training in SOT patients among transplant professionals. It also identifies key areas for further research.
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 | 0.056 | 0.118 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.031 | 0.026 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
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".