Long-term effects of physical activity prescription after bariatric surgery: A randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study examined the effects of physical activity prescription (PAP) in patients after gastric bypass surgery. Patients’ physical activity (PA) levels and outcomes were followed over their first postoperative year.Methods Patients slated for bariatric surgery were randomized to a control group (n = 64) (basic information about postoperative PA) or an intervention group (n = 57) (also received physical therapist-prescribed PAP). Outcome measures were self-reported PA/exercise and sedentary time; and weight, waist circumference, blood pressure, and blood lipids; recorded pre-operatively and at 2, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Follow-ups were conducted by nurses/dieticians. Trial registration: “Research and Development in Sweden” number 107371.Results There were no differences between the groups except for higher level of PA (579 vs. 182 minutes/week) six months after surgery (p = .046) and a larger decrease in cholesterol (−24 vs. −8%) after a year (p = .017) in the intervention group. Patients in both groups lost considerable weight, had reduced waist circumference, and increased PA (p < .001).Conclusion Although marked differences between groups were not observed over one year, the intervention group increased its PA 6-months postoperatively, but not at other time points. Whether long-term outcomes of PAP use are more robust with physical therapist participation across follow-ups warrants study.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 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".