Effectiveness of a home-based pre-habilitation program for lung transplant candidates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Home-based exercise programs may offer a less costly alternative to providing exercise pre-transplant to a large number of patients. We aimed to describe the changes in 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) in lung transplant candidates who participated in a home-based exercise program and their relationship to post-transplant outcomes. Methods: This retrospective analysis investigated 159 individuals in the waiting list for lung transplantation who performed the surgery between 2011-2015. Primary outcome was 6MWD at time of assessment for transplant, last test prior to transplant and one-month post-transplant. Other variables included: total hospital length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit (ICU) LOS and time on mechanical ventilation. Results: Median LOS on the waiting list was 1.9 yrs. There was a mean decrease of 28±94m between the 6MWD at the time of assessment and the last 6MWD prior to transplantation (p<0.001; whole sample). Forty-one patients (25.8%) increased their 6MWD (mean +85.8±42.8m); 72 patients (45.3%) decreased their 6MWD (mean -109.8±71.2m); and 46 patients (28.9%) had no change in 6MWD (-1.5±15.7m). Change in 6MWD prior to transplant weakly correlated with time on mechanical ventilation post-transplant (r=-0.185; p=0.034) and was not associated with time on mechanical ventilation, total hospital LOS or intensive care unit LOS when adjusted for age, gender, body mass index. Conclusions: The majority of the patients were able to either increase or maintain their 6MWD by participating in a home-based pre-habilitation program while on the waiting list. These results are similar to what has been found for hospital-based programs in lung transplant candidates.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".