Effectiveness of a resistance exercise program for lower limbs in chronic renal patients on hemodialysis: A randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Physical inactivity in hemodialysis patients is associated with increased mortality. The objective of this study was evaluated the effect of an intradialytic resistance exercise program on chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients on hemodialysis. METHODS: One hundred seven patients were included in the study. They were aged 18-60 years, of both sexes, had undergone hemodialysis treatment for at least 1 year, sedentary. Patients were randomly divided into two groups: stretching (STG) and resistance exercise (REG). Intervention programs were performed for 8 weeks, three times a week. The evaluations were performed before and after the training programs. The primary outcome was functional capacity using the 6-minute walk test (6MWT). Secondary outcomes were peripheral muscle strength, respiratory muscle strength, spirometric respiratory function, and laboratory data. FINDINGS: Comparisons between groups revealed the following clinically relevant results in favor of REG: lower limb muscle strength (mean difference [MD] = -1.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -2.77 to -1.21; d = -0.53), distance walked in the 6MWT (MD = -26.27, 95% CI = -45.40 to -7.14; d = -0.46), creatinine (MD = -1.52, 95% CI = -2.49 to -0.54; d = -0.66), and calcium (MD = -0.44, 95% CI = -0.78 to -0.10; d = -0.49). DISCUSSION: CKD patients on hemodialysis have reduced functional capacity compared to healthy sedentary individuals. In turn, this reduction appears to be associated with a lower survival rate and affects the performance of their daily living activities. Thus, resistance exercise performed in the intradialytic phase is an effective therapeutic strategy for CKD patients, mainly because it increases functional capacity and lower limb muscle strength.
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) | 0.004 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".