MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3160898440 · doi:10.1186/s13063-021-05633-7

Supine vs upright exercise in patients with hepatopulmonary syndrome and orthodeoxia: study protocol for a randomized controlled crossover trial

2021· article· en· W3160898440 on OpenAlexaff
Harsh Parikh, Eric Lui, Marie E. Faughnan, Abdul Al‐Hesayen, Stephanie A. Segovia, Samir Gupta

Bibliographic record

VenueTrials · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Disease and Transplantation
Canadian institutionsOntario Tobacco Research UnitUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupine positionMedicineHepatopulmonary syndromeCrossover studyCardiologyRandomized controlled trialInternal medicineLiver transplantationPhysical therapyTransplantationPlacebo

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The hepatopulmonary syndrome (HPS) is a pulmonary complication of liver disease found in 10 to 32% of patients with cirrhosis and is characterized by intrapulmonary vascular dilatations and abnormal oxygenation. Liver transplantation is the only effective therapy for this disease. Patients with HPS have significant exercise limitations, impacting their quality of life and associated with poor liver transplant outcomes. Many patients with HPS exhibit orthodeoxia-an improvement in oxygenation in the supine compared to the upright position. We hypothesize that exercise capacity will be superior in the supine compared to the upright position in such patients. METHODS: decrease > 4 mmHg) comparing the effect of supine vs upright position on exercise. Patients with pulmonary hypertension, FEV1/FVC ratio < 0.65, significant coronary artery disease, disorders preventing or contraindicating use of a cycle ergometer, and/or moderate or severe ascites will be excluded. Participants will be randomized to cycle ergometry in either the supine or upright position. After a short washout period (a minimum of 1 day to a maximum of 4 weeks), participants will crossover and perform an exercise in the alternate position. Exercise will be performed at a constant work rate of 70-85% of the predicted peak work rate until the "stopping time" is reached, defined by exhaustion, profound desaturation, or safety concerns (drop in systolic blood pressure or life-threatening arrhythmia). The primary outcome will be the difference in the stopping time between exercise positions, compared with a repeated measures analysis of variance method with a mixed effects model approach. The model will be adjusted for period effects. P < 0.05 will be considered statistically significant. DISCUSSION: HPS patients have hypoxemia leading to significant exercise limitations. If our study is positive, a supine exercise regimen could become a routine prescription for patients with HPS and orthodeoxia, enabling them to exercise more effectively. Future studies could explore the corresponding effects of a supine exercise training regimen on physiologic variables such as long-term exercise capacity, quality of life, dyspnea, and liver transplantation outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Protocol Registration and Results System (PRS) NCT04004104 . Registered on 1 July 2019.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Randomized trialhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.478

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.326 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designNot applicable · Randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTrialsSame topicLiver Disease and TransplantationFrench-language works237,207