Aerobic and Breathing Exercises Improve Dyspnea, Exercise Capacity and Quality of Life in Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis Patients: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a progressive lung disease associated with significant dyspnea and limited exercise capacity. The purpose of this systematic review was to synthesize evidence of various exercise interventions that aim to improve exercise capacity and dyspnea in IPF patients. Methods: Comprehensive searches were performed in MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, SPORTDiscus, PubMed and PEDro. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts to determine eligible studies. Methodological quality of studies was assessed using the Downs and Black checklist and meta-analyses were performed. Results: Of 1499 articles identified, 14 were included (four randomized controlled trials and 10 prospective observational studies with pre-post design). The mean quality assessment score was 58±8%. Aerobic capacity measured by 6 minute walk distance, maximal oxygen consumption and peak work rate significantly improved in the exercise groups (aerobic; aerobic and breathing exercise; aerobic and inspiratory muscle training) versus control groups. Dyspnea scores significantly improved after aerobic and breathing exercises. HRQL increased after aerobic exercise training versus control when measured with St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire and Short-Form 36 Health Survey. Conclusion: Pulmonary rehabilitation programs with aerobic and breathing exercises are beneficial in IPF patients for improving exercise capacity, dyspnea and quality of life.
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 | 0.009 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.024 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".